Texas GOP Passes Resolution Declaring Biden ‘Not Legitimately Elected’

[Ender]

If you want to argue from history, you might want to remember that the States that seceded did so in order to be able to continue to enslave people. This isn't some sort of woke myth dreamed up by the 1619 Project; you should read the Texas secession resolution:



Who was the real tyrant in 1861 -- Lincoln or the slaveowner?

Nope- that is false history; the war was never about slavery- it was about money.

The South seceded because of the tariffs that were imposed by the North. The South was making more money doing business with Europe & was much more productive than the North & the Yankees could not have that. Slavery was about over & approximately 3% of the southern population still had slaves. Many blacks had their own land, farms etc & were part of the growing success of the South.

And, as @Occam's Banana said:

Lincoln's much-vaunted "Emancipation Proclamation" explicitly exempted virtually all slaves under Union purview - including not only those in the five aforementioned Union slave states, but also those in captured Confederate territory, such as a number of counties in Mississippi (where the US Army would continue their enslavement in order to erect and maintain defensive works and fortifications).

[ClaytonB]

There will be a civil war over it again, this time the leftists will lose and then we must deport all the survivors.

I know you believe that and I don't like to burst bubbles but, I assure you, it's just a fantasy.

[Invisible Man]

Nope- that is false history; the war was never about slavery- it was about money.

In their own words, the seceding states thought it was about slavery for them.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/p...eceding-states

[Sonny Tufts]

So according to you secession should only be "permitted" if the entity trying to secede is "right"? You do see the problem there don't you?

I think you're missing the overall point of the right of secession. In general, guaranteeing right of secession helps keeps governments more free. Do you disagree?

My point had nothing to do with secession, but rather with TheTexan's references to Lincoln and the tyrants of today making "the same mistakes of the past". I could easily argue that the tyrants in 1860 were those who wanted to maintain slavery at all costs. Sure, they had other beefs with the North, but the biggest one was slavery. Some would say that the issue was States' Rights, but no government, state or federal, has the right to enslave people. For what it's worth, the only argument that has any teeth at all IMHO is the complaint that the Northern States' refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution and the Fugutive Slave Act of 1850. The failure to abide by the former could be viewed as a breach of the compact made upon the adoption of the Constituition, thereby entitling the Confederate States to secede. A similar argument was made by Madison to view the Articles of Confederation as no longer binding because many States had violated it. See Federalist 43.

It's hard to see how allowing a State to secede makes its citizens more free if the State desires to enforce slavery or implement some other kind of repressive scheme. Suppose Utah were to amend its constitution to eliminate freedom of religion and adding a provision requiring each citizen and noncitizen located within the State to become a member of the Mormon Church and abide by its teachings under penalty of death. When told by the federal goverment that such a law would be unconstitutional, Utah secedes and begins to enforce the provision. Do you see the problem there? Or perhaps the rest of the country should just stand aside, and say "What a pity" or "Sorry your mother got executed Joe, but after all we're in Nevada and what goes on in Utah is none of our business. If they want to have a theocracy that makes Iran look like a libertarian paradise, so be it. After all, they have an inalienable right to secede."

But whatever the theoretical merits of secession, it is extremely impractical unless, as I said earlier, you get a LOT of states to join in.

[Sonny Tufts]

The South was making more money doing business with Europe & was much more productive than the North & the Yankees could not have that. Slavery was about over & approximately 3% of the southern population still had slaves. Many blacks had their own land, farms etc & were part of the growing success of the South.

If the South had been more productive and had been making more money than the North it would have won the war. It certainly grew more cotton but it had far less manufacturing capability. And it really doesn't matter how many people in the South owned slaves but rather what percentage of the South's economy was based on slave labor. One site claims that "In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined." https://www.nps.gov/articles/industr...%20the%20South.

If slavery had been "about over" none of the seceding States would have bitched so much about the North trying to get rid of it.

EDIT: I'm not sure what the site referred to means by "invested value", but elsewhere it claims that the North had a wealth advantage of 73%-27% and an advantage of 68%-32% in the value of exports. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/a...orth-and-south

[TheTexan]

The failure to abide by the former could be viewed as a breach of the compact made upon the adoption of the Constituition, thereby entitling the Confederate States to secede.

This is where your ethical compass is misaligned. One does not need a reason to secede. The right to self determination is innate and inalienable, and is not subject to any kind of justification.

To use force to keep someone in a relationship they don't want to be in is highly immoral and akin to slavery.

You claim you are against slavery.

Why are you OK with the North enslaving the South to stay in the union?

Even if the North's reasons were about slavery [they weren't], it still would not justify enslaving the South.

But whatever the theoretical merits of secession, it is extremely impractical unless, as I said earlier, you get a LOT of states to join in.

The only reason it is "impractical" is because tyrants in this country would threaten violence, for no reason other than to force them to stay in the union.

[paleocon1]

The Texas GOP got it 100% Correct. Joe got in by fraud and treason. The inactive legislatures in those '5 key states' are parties to the demoRat treason.

[Madison320]

It's hard to see how allowing a State to secede makes its citizens more free if the State desires to enforce slavery or implement some other kind of repressive scheme.

If the south seceded they would have eventually freed the slaves and there would be a much better chance that the federal government wouldn't be enslaving people with 50% tax rates like they are now.

[Ender]

In their own words, the seceding states thought it was about slavery for them.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/p...eceding-states

False history- it was always about money. Most the South knew that the slavery issue was being pushed to get the Northern abolitionists involved.

[Ender]

If the south seceded they would have eventually freed the slaves and there would be a much better chance that the federal government wouldn't be enslaving people with 50% tax rates like they are now.

Exactly- slavery was on the way out- the "Civil" War turned everyone into a slave.

[Ender]

This is where your ethical compass is misaligned. One does not need a reason to secede. The right to self determination is innate and inalienable, and is not subject to any kind of justification.

To use force to keep someone in a relationship they don't want to be in is highly immoral and akin to slavery.

You claim you are against slavery.

Why are you OK with the North enslaving the South to stay in the union?

Even if the North's reasons were about slavery [they weren't], it still would not justify enslaving the South.



The only reason it is "impractical" is because tyrants in this country would threaten violence, for no reason other than to force them to stay in the union.

1000%!

And, I'd +rep you again, if I could!

[Occam's Banana]

Clarence Thomas appears to have understood at least something of this dynamic when he admonished the Court against the consequences of refusing to grant certiorari for the Texas v. Pennsylvania suit. Regardless of what one might think of the merits of that case, the Court's refusal to review the matter served only to feed the fires of discontent - a discontent which, for just one example, has become clearly and abundantly manifest in this Texas GOP resolution (and not just some generic public opinion poll). A hearing by SCOTUS, even had it resulted in a decision against Texas, would have ameliorated disaffection to at least some degree, quite possibly enough so as to obviate the eventuality of (or at least reduce the support for) things like this resolution.

I respectfully disagree. First of all, I assume you're referring to the Motion for Leave to file a Bill of Complaint Texas filed; this was an original proceeding and not a certiorari matter. Second, the credulous pro-Trumpers who've taken over the Texas GOP (and those elsewhere) wouldn't have been mollified in the least if SCOTUS had granted a hearing, for two simple reasons: (a) the case would have been dismissed for lack of standing in any event, and (b) those who have swallowed Trump's lies about the election like so much Jim Jones Kool-Aid aren't going to change their minds no matter what.

In repeating my quote above for a post in another thread, I recalled that I had meant to respond to this reply, but had neglected to do so. Here is my belated response:

First: thank you for the correction regarding certiorari. The error does not substantively alter the point I was trying to make.

Second: I agree that hard-core pro-Trumpers were (and are) unlikely to have been (or ever to be) at all swayed or mollified by such things (at least, when those things are not adjudicated in their favor) - but exactly the same thing could be said of hard-core anti-Trumpers. In any case, the problem consists not in those extremes, but in the fact that there is a huge swath of people between those extremes, and a quite significant number of those people have been made (or are becoming) increasingly dubious of "election integrity" [1] - especially given things like the subsequent blatant irregularities in the 2022 elections (such as in Arizona), or the open declaration that known issues will not be addressed at all until after the 2024 elections (such as in Georgia), not to mention that Trump's various indictments are widely perceived as being politically motivated (and not just among hard-core pro-Trumpers [2]).

Now, I am no fan of democracy, and I regard mass democracy at a continent-spanning scope of a third of a billion people inevitably to be an extremely unhealthy and dysfunctional form of governance (even assuming its elections are conducted with "integrity" and "fairness", whatever those terms might be supposed to mean). However, one would expect those who do hold "our democracy" to be a sacred (or at least critically important) thing would exhibit at least some substantive degree of care and concern for such trends (regardless of the personalities involved). But apart from outliers like Clarence Thomas, that is apparently not the case - and no serious attempts at recognition, reconciliation, or amelioration of those trends are being made, no matter how mild (such as merely agreeing to hear a case like Texas v. Pennsylvania, even if later and inevitably to find against the plaintiffs - if only for the sake of the increasingly substantial number of skeptics who are not hard-core pro- or anti-Trumpers, but who are nevertheless doubtful that shenanigans and fraud are not occurring to some more-than-just-trivial extent). Of course, to me, this is all just symptomatic of (and confirmation for) the fundamentally inescapable unhealthiness and dysfunctionality of mass democracy at scale (especially in a world where the gatekeepers of old no longer have a choke-hold control over the dissemination of information and the presentation of narratives).



[1] In a poll from just a few months ago (June 2023), 40% of respondents (including 41% of "independents" and 28% of "moderates") say they either "believe Joe Biden [...] only won [...] due to voter fraud" or "don't know [if he won that way]". That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of "our democracy" and public trust in "election integrity" (nor a rebuke of notions of "widespread" election fraud), is it? (And those numbers are too large and varied to be attributed to and dismissed as hard-core pro-Trumpers.)

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-ins..._us_062023.pdf

[2] In another poll (also from June 2023), regarding Trump indictment #2:

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...010%202023.pdf


No crosstabs are provided in the PDF, but according to this article:

Forty-seven percent of respondents in the ABC News/Ipsos poll released Sunday say the charges against Trump are politically motivated, while 37 percent say they are not. Sixteen percent say they are not sure. [IOW: Only just over a third of respondents were confident that the indictment is not politically motivated. - OB]

Most Republicans - 80 percent - say the charges announced last week are politically motivated, with [...] 16 percent of Democrats aligning with that view.

[TheCount]

They can't have been all that concerned about it if they haven't found any time in their legislative calendar to bring the issue up. What have they done in the year since this resolution?

[Occam's Banana]

[... H]ard-core pro-Trumpers were (and are) unlikely to have been (or ever to be) at all swayed or mollified by such things (at least, when those things are not adjudicated in their favor) - but exactly the same thing could be said of hard-core anti-Trumpers. In any case, the problem consists not in those extremes, but in the fact that there is a huge swath of people between those extremes, and a quite significant number of those people have been made (or are becoming) increasingly dubious of "election integrity" [...]

[... O]ne would expect those who do hold "our democracy" to be a sacred (or at least critically important) thing would exhibit at least some substantive degree of care and concern for such trends (regardless of the personalities involved). But apart from outliers like Clarence Thomas, that is apparently not the case - and no serious attempts at recognition, reconciliation, or amelioration of those trends are being made [...] for the sake of the increasingly substantial number of skeptics who are not hard-core pro- or anti-Trumpers, but who are nevertheless doubtful that shenanigans and fraud are not occurring to some more-than-just-trivial extent [...]

Further to which, consider the following from an August 2023 poll (PDF file here):

Note that consistently over 80% across all demographics are "worried" ("somewhat" or "very"), with the only exceptions being men (79%), 18- to 34-year-olds (76%, or 78% self-identified registered), and blacks (69%, or 71% self-identified registered) [with a margin of error of 2.3, or 2.4 for self-identified registered].

Clearly, the results are heavily lopsided in favor of "very worried" - and while the results may include hard-core pro-Trumpers who regard anti-Trumpers as the source of the threat to "the system of democracy", they are as likely to include hard-core anti-Trumpers who regard pro-Trumpers as the source of that threat. However, most respondents are likely to be "just people" who could be described as "election integrity" skeptics, but who cannot simply be dismissed as "election denial" cranks. Or to repeat what I said earlier:

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of "our democracy" and public trust in "election integrity" (nor a rebuke of notions of "widespread" election fraud), is it? (And those numbers are too large and varied to be attributed to and dismissed as hard-core pro-Trumpers.)

[Anti Federalist]

They can't have been all that concerned about it if they haven't found any time in their legislative calendar to bring the issue up. What have they done in the year since this resolution?

Nothing.

The "right" wing of the Uni-Party excels in doing $#@! all.

[Swordsmyth]

They can't have been all that concerned about it if they haven't found any time in their legislative calendar to bring the issue up. What have they done in the year since this resolution?

The Texas legislature is controlled by Bushie RINOs, like those trying to impeach Paxton on made up garbage.
They are Biden supporters in Elephant's clothing.
They routinely conspire with the Donkeys against the real Republicans in Texas.

[acptulsa]

They can't have been all that concerned about it if they haven't found any time in their legislative calendar to bring the issue up. What have they done in the year since this resolution?

[Snowball]

Just like the House.. wasting time on crap that can go nowhere, while the country burns.

[TheCount]

The Texas legislature is controlled by Bushie RINOs, like those trying to impeach Paxton on made up garbage.
They are Biden supporters in Elephant's clothing.
They routinely conspire with the Donkeys against the real Republicans in Texas.

Can you explain why they passed the resolution in the OP?

[Philhelm]

I know you believe that and I don't like to burst bubbles but, I assure you, it's just a fantasy.

A civil war may seem far-fetched, but it is something that has already happened in our nation's history. I think the fact that so many more people talk about it on a level unseen even just five years ago means that it isn't impossible. If it does happen, it will probably be years from now since even the Founding Fathers had to suffer a train of abuses. Regardless, I have a hard time envisioning any form of reconciliation between the right and the left; it's getting nasty.

[ClaytonB]

A civil war may seem far-fetched, but it is something that has already happened in our nation's history. I think the fact that so many more people talk about it on a level unseen even just five years ago means that it isn't impossible. If it does happen, it will probably be years from now since even the Founding Fathers had to suffer a train of abuses. Regardless, I have a hard time envisioning any form of reconciliation between the right and the left; it's getting nasty.

That specific comment was not about saying a civil war is impossible, rather, the mass-deportation fantasy that was being attached to it. I acknowledge that there are a lot of people in the US illegally who need to be deported, and plenty who are here legally who need to be locked up or even executed for treason, etc. But the mass-purge fantasy is just that... a fantasy. There are only two kinds of purges that are possible: yet another mass-purge of good people by evil people, or the Apocalypse, when God will purge the whole world of all evil, casting the wicked into eternal hell. Those are your only two options in that department... "the good guys purge the bad guys" is not even a logical possibility.

[Occam's Banana]

I have a hard time envisioning any form of reconciliation between the right and the left; it's getting nasty.

This ↑↑↑. There isn't going to be any reconciliation.

When the government possesses as much power as the U.S. federal government does, there are going to be intense factional fights over who gets to control all that power.

And when the factions are drawn from a continent-spanning population of over a third of a billion people, at least one of those factions is going to be sufficiently large that it will pose a significant (political) threat to the other(s). When you combine this with the fact that "progressivism" (as the guiding ideology of one of those factions) simply cannot be reconciled - not even in principle (indeed, especially not in principle) - with "conservatism" [1] "anti-progressivism", then you end up with only three possible outcomes. Broadly speaking, those outcomes are:

(1) left-socialist authoritarianism that actively represses opposing factions (including but not limited to the right-fascist ones)
(2) right-fascist authoritarianism that actively represses opposing factions (including but not limited to the left-socialist ones)
(3) the political collapse and breakup of the previously-existing regime (by way of either relatively peaceful "national divorce" or relatively violent "civil war")

Of course, (1) and (2) are really just different flavors of the same thing (i.e., repressive authoritarianism), The only possibility congenial to liberty is (3) - and even (3) may result in some (all ?) pieces that themselves end up manifesting (1) or (2).

In fact, national "unity" (perhaps under the guise of some kind of false "reconciliation") is the absolute last thing we need [2] - at least, if we care about liberty. If that ever happens, then (1) or (2) will finally have been achieved. Since the early 1900s (or even before) things have slowly "progressed" (ha-ha) to the point of no return. The genie is out of the bottle (or the water is over the dam [3]) - and it's not going back. Something's gotta give, and now it's only a question of "when" and "how", not "if".



[1] "Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit." -- MIchael Malice

[2] "A united populace is the ultimate and explicit goal of every totalitarian state." -- MIchael Malice

[3] "They thought Trump was the river but he was the dam." -- Michael Malice

[Swordsmyth]

Can you explain why they passed the resolution in the OP?

Because that was the party, not the legislature.
The party either had less RINOs in control of the process, or didn't want to fight the grassroots over something that would have no legal effect.

[Swordsmyth]

That specific comment was not about saying a civil war is impossible, rather, the mass-deportation fantasy that was being attached to it. I acknowledge that there are a lot of people in the US illegally who need to be deported, and plenty who are here legally who need to be locked up or even executed for treason, etc. But the mass-purge fantasy is just that... a fantasy. There are only two kinds of purges that are possible: yet another mass-purge of good people by evil people, or the Apocalypse, when God will purge the whole world of all evil, casting the wicked into eternal hell. Those are your only two options in that department... "the good guys purge the bad guys" is not even a logical possibility.

Wrong.

[Swordsmyth]

This ↑↑↑. There isn't going to be any reconciliation.

When the government possesses as much power as the U.S. federal government does, there are going to be intense factional fights over who gets to control all that power.

And when the factions are drawn from over a continent-spanning population of over a third of a billion people, at least one of those factions is going to be sufficiently large that it will pose a significant (political) threat to the other(s). When you combine this with the fact that "progressivism" (as the guiding ideology of one of those factions) simply cannot be reconciled - not even in principle (indeed, especially not in principle) - with "conservatism" [1] "anti-progressivism", then you end up with only three possible outcomes. Broadly speaking, those outcomes are:

(1) left-socialist authoritarianism that actively represses opposing factions (including but not limited to the right-fascist ones)
(2) right-fascist authoritarianism that actively represses opposing factions (including but not limited to the left-socialist ones)
(3) the political collapse and breakup of the previously-existing regime (by way of either relatively peaceful "national divorce" or relatively violent "civil war")

Of course, (1) and (2) are really just different flavors of the same thing (i.e., repressive authoritarianism), The only possibility congenial to liberty is (3) - and even (3) may result in some (all ?) pieces that themselves end up manifesting (1) or (2).

In fact, national "unity" (perhaps under the guise of some kind of false "reconciliation") is the absolute last thing we need [2] - at least, if we care about liberty. If that ever happens, then (1) or (2) will finally have been achieved. Since the early 1900s (or even before) things have slowly "progressed" (ha-ha) to the point of no return. The genie is out of the bottle (or the water is over the dam [3]) - and it's not going back. Something's gotta give, and now it's only a question of "when" and "how", not "if".



[1] "Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit." -- MIchael Malice

[2] "A united populace is the ultimate and explicit goal of every totalitarian state." -- MIchael Malice

[3] "They thought Trump was the river but he was the dam." -- Michael Malice

4 expulsion of the anti-liberty left, followed by compromise between all liberty respecting factions of various degrees of purity or extremism.

[Occam's Banana]

4 expulsion of the anti-liberty left, followed by compromise between all liberty respecting factions of various degrees of purity or extremism.

So the anti-liberty left has to go, but the anti-liberty right gets to stay? [1]

LOL That's just option (2) with some empty lip service for "liberty respecting factions". [2]

After all, 0% is a "degree" that "vari[es]" from 100% (and there is no "compromise" to be had between them, any more than there is to be had with the anti-liberty left [3]).



[1] Just as I said:

(2) right-fascist authoritarianism that actively represses opposing factions (including but not limited to the left-socialist ones)

[2] Just as I also said:

(2) right-fascist authoritarianism that actively represses opposing factions (including but not limited to the left-socialist ones)

[3] "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." -- Ayn Rand

[Swordsmyth]

So the anti-liberty left has to go, but the anti-liberty right gets to stay? [1]

LOL That's just option (2) with some empty lip service for "liberty respecting factions". [2]

After all, 0% is a "degree" that "vari[es]" from 100% (and there is no "compromise" to be had between them, any more than there is to be had with the anti-liberty left [3]).



[1] Just as I said:


[2] Just as I also said:



[3] "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." -- Ayn Rand

Nice strawman.

[Occam's Banana]

Nice strawman.

So are you going to apply your "expulsion" policy to the anti-liberty right, too (along with the anti-liberty left)?

If not, where is the strawman?

If so, why did you exclude them from your statement?

[Swordsmyth]

So are you going to apply your "expulsion" policy to the anti-liberty right, too (along with the anti-liberty left)?

If not, where is the strawman?

If so, why did you exclude them from your statement?

Duh.

Just because I think we shouldn't throw out everyone but anarchists doesn't mean I want to keep Neocons.
Believe it or not, Neocons and their close relatives are part of the left, not the right, but even if you want to cut things on party lines I made it clear only liberty respecting factions were going to remain.

You think you could manage to live with Constitutional Conservatives who are not anarchists like Ron Paul?

[Occam's Banana]

Duh.

Just because I think we shouldn't throw out everyone but anarchists doesn't mean I want to keep Neocons.
Believe it or not, Neocons and their close relatives are part of the left, not the right, but even if you want to cut things on party lines I made it clear only liberty respecting factions were going to remain.

I didn't say anything about "neocons" - but your shuck-and-jive about how they are really just a "part of the left" (with which I don't disagree) only serves to beg the question.

So I'll repeat it (with emphasis added):

[A]re you going to apply your "expulsion" policy to the anti-liberty right, too (along with the anti-liberty left)?

You think you could manage to live with Constitutional Conservatives who are not anarchists like Ron Paul?

Of course I could. Why wouldn't I?

I'm not the one proposing the forcible "expulsion" of many millions of people with whom I disagree just for the sake of preventing a dysfunctional and necessarily increasingly authoritarian national polity from coming apart at the seams. (Just let it come apart - voluntary self-"expulsion"/separation FTW.)