Texas Rep Chip Roy Implicitly Threatens Secession During Floor Speech

[Invisible Man]

That's doubletalk to me. They haven't seceded, because they're still taxing me. They're still passing laws that impact me. They're still asserting dominion over me. And frankly it's not as though "the right" have been ardent adherents to the constitution over the years.

People like Allen West and Glenn Beck need to grow a set, and affirm that it is time to dissolve the union, and not weasel out of it. Just break it up, already. It would be great if people like West and Beck, with their platforms and influence, would openly embrace the idea of secession. If they did, then we might really get somewhere, instead of this miserable trudging along, wiping our brows over the next, latest outrageous violation of our rights.

Here's a clip where Glenn Beck and Chip Roy both give exactly the double-speak you're talking about. They are dead set against seceding and think they can have it both ways by saying the left needs to secede and not them.

I wonder if the "implicit threat" of secession you thought you heard in the OP takes on a different implication when heard in the light of this.

https://www.glennbeck.com/radio/why-...ecede-not-ours

[TheTexan]

They are both on the mainstream Zionist payroll. You will never hear either of them call for significant change.

They don't need to.

I get a hard-on every time the word "secession" is used, regardless of the lack of intention behind it.

[TheTexan]

Here's a clip where Glenn Beck and Chip Roy both give exactly the double-speak you're talking about. They are dead set against seceding and think they can have it both ways by saying the left needs to secede and not them.

I wonder if the "implicit threat" of secession you thought you heard in the OP takes on a different implication when heard in the light of this.

https://www.glennbeck.com/radio/why-...ecede-not-ours

Part of me thinks you're right.

Another part of me thinks what you're saying is just an autistically strict interpretation that is incapable of reading between the lines.

[kahless]

People need to stop waiting for government for permission to separate if they want to separate. Just do it and let them come to you to hammer out an agreement.

[TheTexan]

People need to stop waiting for government for permission to separate if they want to separate.

This is why I am in favor of Allen West for gov. He is not on record as being pro-secession, but he is on record for being pro-choice for secession.

[Invisible Man]

Part of me thinks you're right.

Another part of me thinks what you're saying is just an autistically strict interpretation that is incapable of reading between the lines.

Well then three cheers for autism.

Consider the possibilities:
Possibility #1 - Congressman Chip Roy, who as far as I know is a Republican in good standing, is saying something very radical and outside of acceptable political discourse, something that's intolerable to his party's leadership and the funders of his campaigns. And he's saying it without actually saying it in a dog whistle that's going right over the heads of the left so that they're not bothered by it.

Possibility #2 - Roy is saying nothing more than what he actually says. He sounds tough, and Trumpers, Tea Partiers, and Glenn Beck listeners are eating it up, like they always do. But when you get down to any black and white serious threats that he can be pinned down to. There's nothing there.

Which possibility has greater verisimilitude?

I remember something eerily like this with Rick Perry when he was a governor. I wish I could remember the specifics well enough to look it up. But it was some big states rights thing where Republicans in Texas were threatening something that was really daring against the feds, and Perry was publicly talking it up, and it came out that behind the scenes he was actively making sure it never came to him for a signature.

Alan West, Glenn Beck, Chip Roy.... they all strike me as major Rick Perry style Republicans.

[TheTexan]

Well then three cheers for autism.

Consider the possibilities:
Possibility #1 - Congressman Chip Roy, who as far as I know is a Republican in good standing, is saying something very radical and outside of acceptable political discourse, something that's intolerable to his party's leadership and the funders of his campaigns. And he's saying it without actually saying it in a dog whistle that's going right over the heads of the left so that they're not bothered by it.

Possibility #2 - Roy is saying nothing more than what he actually says. He sounds tough, and Trumpers, Tea Partiers, and Glenn Beck listeners are eating it up, like they always do. But when you get down to any black and white serious threats that he can be pinned down to. There's nothing there.

Which possibility has greater verisimilitude?

I remember something eerily like this with Rick Perry when he was a governor. I wish I could remember the specifics well enough to look it up. But it was some big states rights thing where Republicans in Texas were threatening something that was really daring against the feds, and Perry was publicly talking it up, and it came out that behind the scenes he was actively making sure it never came to him for a signature.

Alan West, Glenn Beck, Chip Roy.... they all strike me as major Rick Perry style Republicans.

All I know is that the Rick Perry's of the world... they run the world, and they always have. Yet, good things like 1776 do still happen.

1776 didn't happen because a Ron Paul of their era gave some inspirational speech in a debate. 1776 happened because the Glenn Beck's and the Rick Perry's of the region wanted it to happen.

I understand why people here casually dismiss Glenn Beck, Chip Roy, and even the fantastic Allen West.

But what you, and others don't understand, is that if anything good ever happens in this country, it will be done with the support of people like Glenn Beck, Chip Roy, and Allen West. So if you are saying that it is impossible for them to do anything good, then just sit well with the knowledge that nothing good will ever happen.

[A Son of Liberty]

Part of me thinks you're right.

Another part of me thinks what you're saying is just an autistically strict interpretation that is incapable of reading between the lines.

@Invisible Man

What he said, and also what he said about being aroused by the mere mention or inferration of secession...

As I mentioned earlier, it's another log on the fire. I get it - Beck worships the constitution religiously; but whether he realizes it or not, he's giving airtime to rhetoric which is going to tear this country apart... but for the better. He and those like him think that we must have our "sacred union", but what he doesn't realize, or refuses to realize, or chooses to not realize, is that the true founding of these united states was in the DoI, and that those are the principles we should adhere to, and not the pragmatic, cynical compromise that is the constitution.

Whatever. The work of reestablishing the principles of the DoI will be much more easily achieved by separating out those who vehemently do not want to do so. Let's get rid of them, first. Next, we'll get rid of those who are willing to compromise. Then, after them, we'll get rid of those who are willing to budge. And after that, there'll be nothing left of the state at all.

A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.

[Invisible Man]

1776 didn't happen because a Ron Paul of their era gave some inspirational speech in a debate. 1776 happened because the Glenn Beck's and the Rick Perry's of the region wanted it to happen.

And how'd that work out for us?

[A Son of Liberty]

All I know is that the Rick Perry's of the world... they run the world, and they always have. Yet, good things like 1776 do still happen.

1776 didn't happen because a Ron Paul of their era gave some inspirational speech in a debate. 1776 happened because the Glenn Beck's and the Rick Perry's of the region wanted it to happen.

I understand why people here casually dismiss Glenn Beck, Chip Roy, and even the fantastic Allen West.

But what you, and others don't understand, is that if anything good ever happens in this country, it will be done with the support of people like Glenn Beck, Chip Roy, and Allen West. So if you are saying that it is impossible for them to do anything good, then just sit well with the knowledge that nothing good will ever happen.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again.

Sadly true, sir. Movements rarely if ever gain momentum unless there are people casting the ideas of that movement into the popular narrative. We don't need leaders, but we do need spokesmen.

[nobody's_hero]

All I know is that the Rick Perry's of the world... they run the world, and they always have. Yet, good things like 1776 do still happen.

1776 didn't happen because a Ron Paul of their era gave some inspirational speech in a debate. 1776 happened because the Glenn Beck's and the Rick Perry's of the region wanted it to happen.

I understand why people here casually dismiss Glenn Beck, Chip Roy, and even the fantastic Allen West.

But what you, and others don't understand, is that if anything good ever happens in this country, it will be done with the support of people like Glenn Beck, Chip Roy, and Allen West. So if you are saying that it is impossible for them to do anything good, then just sit well with the knowledge that nothing good will ever happen.

[Invisible Man]

But what you, and others don't understand, is that if anything good ever happens in this country, it will be done with the support of people like Glenn Beck, Chip Roy, and Allen West. So if you are saying that it is impossible for them to do anything good, then just sit well with the knowledge that nothing good will ever happen.

My recollection from the presidential campaigns of Ron and Rand Paul, and the gubernatorial campaign of Debra Medina, was that those guys and their ilk were the ones who actively worked to prevent anything good from happening, not to help bring it about.

To the extent that you and I are for some of the same things, I'm all for expanding support for those things by bringing these guys into our camp, with whatever carrots and sticks may help do that. But expanding the boundaries that define who we are so broadly so as to include the very same people who actively thwart our causes inside those boundaries and then tout these enemies as allies every time they hint at some agreement with us while stopping short of saying the most essential things that would make that agreement anything meaningful (in the present case this may be giving them too much credit, since they're expressing positive opposition to secession), doesn't seem like an accomplishment of anything except perhaps making it easier for them to stop us from succeeding at something good in the future when we trust them and they inevitably betray us.

[TheTexan]

My recollection from the presidential campaigns of Ron and Rand Paul, and the gubernatorial campaign of Debra Medina, was that those guys and their ilk were the ones who actively worked to prevent anything good from happening, not to help bring it about.

To the extent that you and I are for some of the same things, I'm all for expanding support for those things by bringing these guys into our camp, with whatever carrots and sticks may help do that. But expanding the boundaries that define who we are so broadly so as to include the very same people who actively thwart our causes inside those boundaries and then tout these enemies as allies every time they hint at some agreement with us while stopping short of saying the most essential things that would make that agreement anything meaningful (in the present case this may be giving them too much credit, since they're expressing positive opposition to secession), doesn't seem like an accomplishment of anything except perhaps making it easier for them to stop us from succeeding at something good in the future when we trust them and they inevitably betray us.

For them to betray us, we would first have to trust them. I don't think anybody here trusts them.

If they do end up calling for secession, it will very likely be for reasons that we don't necessarily agree with. (which is fine with me)

As for our causes... what are "our causes"? I know what mine is: secession.

And if they say things that promotes that cause? They get a cookie.

If they stop promoting that cause? No more cookies.

Nowhere in that process is "trust" involved.

[TheTexan]

Noone will ever be on board with us ideologically 100% (except perhaps Massie..)

Most people will not even be on board with us 50%.

But I do think, when your everyday Republican Chip Roy goes from 5-20% that it is cause for celebration.

Because it illustrates a "market penetration" of sorts, of our ideas.

[Invisible Man]

For them to betray us, we would first have to trust them. I don't think anybody here trusts them.

If they do end up calling for secession, it will very likely be for reasons that we don't necessarily agree with. (which is fine with me)

As for our causes... what are "our causes"? I know what mine is: secession.

And if they say things that promotes that cause? They get a cookie.

If they stop promoting that cause? No more cookies.

Nowhere in that process is "trust" involved.

In the clip from the Glenn Beck show with Chip Roy that I posted, Glenn beck says, "It bothers me when I hear people say, 'It's time to secede.' No it is not!" (11:38); and then, "I'm not seceding from America." (11:52); to which Chip replies, "Amen, amen, amen."

These words are seasoned with interjections from both men about how the liberals should secede. But only the liberals. Beck and Roy themselves will have no part of doing it.

Are these promotions of the cause of secession deserving of cookies?

[nobody's_hero]

I would settle for kicking out all the liberal states if secession doesn't gain any traction.

[TheTexan]

In the clip from the Glenn Beck show with Chip Roy that I posted, Glenn beck says, "It bothers me when I hear people say, 'It's time to secede.' No it is not!" (11:38); and then, "I'm not seceding from America." (11:52); to which Chip replies, "Amen, amen, amen."

These words are seasoned with interjections from both men about how the liberals should secede. But only the liberals. Beck and Roy themselves will have no part of doing it.

Are these promotions of the cause of secession deserving of cookies?

Yes, they are deserving cookies. Even with the worst case interpretation of what they are saying (e.g., your interpretation) they are still recognizing the fact that there is a huge divide in this country, to a degree equivalent of secession.

Even in that worst case interpretation, they still deserve a cookie, because recognizing that divide, is the first step to solving that divide.

I would lean towards a more generous interpretation, as I think your interpretation is too autistically narrow, but either way, they do deserve a cookie.

[Invisible Man]

Yes, they are deserving cookies. Even with the worst case interpretation of what they are saying (e.g., your interpretation) they are still recognizing the fact that there is a huge divide in this country, to a degree equivalent of secession.

Even in that worst case interpretation, they still deserve a cookie, because recognizing that divide, is the first step to solving that divide.

I would lean towards a more generous interpretation, as I think your interpretation is too autistically narrow, but either way, they do deserve a cookie.

It's not a worst case interpretation. It's what they explicitly say. Your generous interpretation is the very thing that they explicitly reject.

And everything we know about these guys from everything they've ever done and said (I don't know about Roy, but Beck for sure, along with West and Perry) goes against that generous interpretation, even if they ever did say anything that pointed that way.

[TheTexan]

It's not a worst case interpretation. It's what they explicitly say. Your generous interpretation is the very thing that they explicitly reject.

And everything we know about these guys from everything they've ever done and said (I don't know about Roy, but Beck for sure, along with West and Perry) goes against that generous interpretation, even if they ever did say anything that pointed that way.

I explicitly say a lot of stuff that I don't mean explicitly.

I'm also aware of some of the context behind what they are saying (e.g. Allen West's interview with Glenn Beck).

I'm also aware of the political climate we are in (boo secession! yay america!).

Context matters.

Either way, again - even with your interpretation they still deserve a cookie for 1) recognizing the huge divide in this country, and 2) using the word "secession" ( .. boing! ..)

[Invisible Man]

I explicitly say a lot of stuff that I don't mean explicitly.

I'm also aware of some of the context behind what they are saying (e.g. Allen West's interview with Glenn Beck).

I'm also aware of the political climate we are in (boo secession! yay america!).

Context matters.

Either way, again - even with your interpretation they still deserve a cookie for 1) recognizing the huge divide in this country, and 2) using the word secession ( .. boing! ..)

Here you have people not just refraining from explicitly saying they support secession, but rather explicitly saying they oppose it.

Which is exactly what we all know their position is anyway, without needing them to tell us. Because, like you said, this comes within a context, and we know this context, and everything in this context has already shown us all we need to know that West, Beck, Roy, and Perry, do not support secession.

Like you said, context matters. I'm being attuned to the context. You're in a make believe world where you're ignoring the context of this real world with all the background that the guys you're giving cookies to have, like an abused wife who keeps thinking this same abusive husband is really different this time because he told the same lie that he told the last ten times and you believed him those times too. But you're even worse than that, because this time he's not even telling a lie. He's saying he's going to beat you, and you're giving him a cookie for it.

So there's really no need to get into whether or not to interpret them generously, and read between the lines, versus being autistic like me.

But since I'm a glutton for punishment, I'll keep playing that game anyway.

I don't know if you have kids. But I do, and anyone who does will know exactly what I'm talking about. When I want my kids to tell me they are going to do something, or not do something, and I want to make sure that we're on the same page. I know better than to give them an out by not being explicit. And when in moments of weakness (aka not being autistic enough) I do decide to interpret them generously and think they're promising the same thing I want from them even without them actually saying it, or else I don't spell out my own expectations with total explicitness, that's when they're sure to try to weasel their way out of it, and say, "But you didn't say this, you only said that," no matter how obvious it should have been what I really meant.

Politicians are worse than that. They prove it over and over again. And they absolutely love making fools of people who interpret them generously. And they are utterly averse to ever being explicit because they hate being held to anything. This too is context that matters.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RMConservative/s...04624282996736

[TheTexan]

Here you have people not just refraining from explicitly saying they support secession, but rather explicitly saying they oppose it.

Again, context.

The "Left has seceded so we shouldn't have to" is more of a marketing gimmick FOR secession than it is against secession.

This is evidenced by Allen West ( who pretty much started that "Left has seceded" idea ) who fully supports Biedermann's bill for Texans to vote on secession. Allen West is on record as saying that he thinks Texans deserve to have a vote on it.

Only an autist thinks what is explicitly said is what is explicitly meant. In almost all cases there is more nuance than that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Chip Roy 2021 Freedom Index: 100%

[Invisible Man]

Again, context.

The "Left has seceded so we shouldn't have to" is more of a marketing gimmick FOR secession than it is against secession.

This is evidenced by Allen West ( who pretty much started that "Left has seceded" idea ) who fully supports Biedermann's bill for Texans to vote on secession. Allen West is on record as saying that he thinks Texans deserve to have a vote on it.

Only an autist thinks what is explicitly said is what is explicitly meant. In almost all cases there is more nuance than that.

If that bill passes, and Texans are given the chance to vote on secession, West, Roy, and Beck will all campaign actively to get Texans to vote against secession, and the line about the left seceding and not us is going to be one of their key talking points. And their side (i.e. Texas remaining in the Union) will win that vote in a landslide. And their use of that line will help them do it.

That's if the bill passes in the first place, which I doubt. But on the off chance it does, that is what will happen.

[TheTexan]

If that bill passes, and Texans are given the chance to vote on secession, West, Roy, and Beck will all campaign actively to get Texans to vote against secession, and the line about the left seceding and not us is going to be one of their key talking points.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's likely that you are right. Glenn Beck almost certainly. The others I'm not so sure.

If you always expect the worst in people, you will never be disappointed. But you will also be surprised sometimes.

[Invisible Man]

I wouldn't be so sure. It's likely that you are right. Glenn Beck almost certainly. The others I'm not so sure.

If you always expect the worst in people, you will never be disappointed. But you will also be surprised sometimes.

I admit I don't know about Roy--he's the one I could be wrong about. I'm glad to see you're not taken in by Beck. I can't see how you can't see how much of a charlatan West is though. The old satirical TheTexan, sure, that guy would have been all in for Allen West, but not the real guy behind the mask. That doesn't sit well with me.

[TheTexan]

I admit I don't know about Roy--he's the one I could be wrong about. I'm glad to see you're not taken in by Beck. I can't see how you can't see how much of a charlatan West is though. The old satirical TheTexan, sure, that guy would have been all in for Allen West, but not the real guy behind the mask. That doesn't sit well with me.

I consider myself a decent judge of character and I think Allen West's heart is in the right place. There's extremely few politicians I would say that about.

So if he is a charlatan, he's a really $#@!ing good one, because I don't get fooled very easily.

[nobody's_hero]

https://twitter.com/RMConservative/s...04624282996736

I've long said the debate over where this country goes from here, is happening within the GOP.

[TheTexan]

I've long said the debate over where this country goes from here, is happening within the GOP.

It does feel like the GOP is starting to radicalize. In a good way.

Just a feeling.

[A Son of Liberty]

My recollection from the presidential campaigns of Ron and Rand Paul, and the gubernatorial campaign of Debra Medina, was that those guys and their ilk were the ones who actively worked to prevent anything good from happening, not to help bring it about.

To the extent that you and I are for some of the same things, I'm all for expanding support for those things by bringing these guys into our camp, with whatever carrots and sticks may help do that. But expanding the boundaries that define who we are so broadly so as to include the very same people who actively thwart our causes inside those boundaries and then tout these enemies as allies every time they hint at some agreement with us while stopping short of saying the most essential things that would make that agreement anything meaningful (in the present case this may be giving them too much credit, since they're expressing positive opposition to secession), doesn't seem like an accomplishment of anything except perhaps making it easier for them to stop us from succeeding at something good in the future when we trust them and they inevitably betray us.

We're running out of time for this kind of navel gazing... I'm as guilty as the next anti-statist when it comes to ideological purity, but we've got a better chance of distilling the state out of the concoction without all of the commies.

We're running out of time. And if you don't see that... I don't know - what's your solution?