https://www.newsweek.com/texas-independence-republican-party-court-1856413 A pro-Texas independence movement has said it will take the state Republican party to court after it rejected its proposal to put the question of secession on the ballot in 2024.
The Texas Nationalist Movement (TEXIT) said state Republicans had a day to reconsider their decision not to include the issue during state primaries in March next year. Newsweek has contacted the Texas GOP and TEXIT for comment on Friday.
In a statement, TEXIT leader Daniel Miller said: "It is clear that the Republican Party of Texas is grasping for any tactic, no matter how ridiculous, to suppress the voices of Republican voters who merely want their voices heard on this fundamental issue of governance.
"We hereby reject the decision of the Republican Party of Texas and fully intend to litigate to secure the rights of the petition signers as guaranteed by the Texas Election Code," Miller added.
A ballot "for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation" in the March primaries would not be legally binding and would serve only as an advisory vote.
The issue of secession is contentious. After Rinaldi's letter was posted, Texas State Representative Jared Patterson said that "American traitors will not get their initiative on the Republican primary ballot this March."
Patterson added on X: "Their candidates shouldn't get the support of Republican voters either."
Questions approved by the Texas GOP to appear on the March ballot include if a 'Border Protection Unit' should be created, urging Congress not to grant amnesty for illegal aliens, and banning the sale of state land to buyers from China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.
forget the alamo and remember the corporate welfare handouts & covid
forget the alamo and remember the corporate welfare handouts & covid Sat 30 Dec 2023 07:18:07 No. 1251460 Report Quoted By:
>>1251417 Rich Republicans want all those Federal freebies that the Democrats hand out.
Anonymous
I look forward to the state of Texas removing itself from the United States. Followed quickly by other states as well. It will make the upcoming civil war pretty interesting
Anonymous
>>1251417 I know this will never happen, but can you imagine Texas not holding us back? Republitards would be down 38 electoral votes permanently, they would never win the presidency ever again mind a new usa. 38 house seats would be distributed to the rest of the USA which would overall benefit Democrats. And there'd be two fewer red senators. Texas is ~45% Democrat, so they'd be hurt too by secession unfortunately.
Anonymous
>>1251505 >38 house seats would be distributed to the rest of the USA Lol fucking what?
Anonymous
>>1251508 The House is required to have 435 voting seats.
Anonymous
>>1251510 That's the current "maximum" they set for the house. The house isn't like the Senate, there aren't and have never been a set number of seats. Traditionally it has always increased with population.
Anonymous
>>1251508 NTA, but what do you mean "what?"
That's the most likely scenario. 435 is an artificial fixed number that has been in effect since like 1900.
Anonymous
>>1251508 The electoral vote count is permanently set to 435. Texas is currently worth 40 electoral votes (38 House districts + 2 Senate). If Texas no longer was a part of the United States, the 40 electoral votes it is worth would be redistributed to other states. The only mistake the other anon made when posting is saying 38 electoral votes instead of 40 would be redistributed (he must've assumed that since those two Senate seats would no longer exist, then those electoral votes would no longer exist to be able to be redistributed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 All this is moot anyway, since it is illegal for a state to secede from the United States (which is different from a portion of a state seceding from the rest of the parent state, which is legal as long as the parent state and Congress both agree to it, which is what happened with West Virginia and Maine).
Anonymous
>>1251514 Congressmen aren't spoils of war to be divided among the states, you stupid faggots. I guess we'd divide the two senators from Texas somehow too, right?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251517 Samefag here, I misspoke. The House of Representatives is permanently set to 435 seats. That, plus 2 Senators from each state, plus DC's at-large electoral votes equals the current total electoral vote count of 538
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251526 I swear in every other thread on this board liberals/leftoids need to reteach retard rightwingers what they didn't pay attention to in high school.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251512 I don't know what's dumber about this, not knowing the House has a set number of seats or not knowing the Senate's number of seats isn't set and increases by 2 with each new state.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251512 The seats just get redistributed depending on the relative populations of each state. After every census, some states gain seats based on their population relative to the other states, and some states lose seats. But the total number is always 435. Since the Reapportionment Act passed, the only exception was when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as new states, which added one at-large seat each until the next census corrected the number back down to 435.
Anonymous
>>1251526 Just for the record, when the house of representatives decided for itself that it didn't need any more members, the difference between the Senate and the house completely disappeared.
The house of representatives was supposed to be "the people's house" that held politicians close to the people they represented which were limited to how many people you could represent. (Because how could one person effectively represent so many or hear their concerns?)
Now there is no "people's house" and it's just two clownshows that both represent only the elites.
Libshits will hate this post because anything about history to them is like sunlight to vampires.
Anonymous
>>1251536 I believe you will find that more "libshits" are unhappy with the government being unrepresentative of the population than republitards. Republitards only care about the government being unrepresentative of the people when it doesn't benefit them, they don't complain that the Senate wildly favors republitards because it helps them. Meanwhile you have libtards in commiefornia handicapping themselves by having an independent commission draw the house districts, and in Texas they draw the districts to benefit republitards the most.
Anonymous
There aren't enough retards in Texas to approve of this. Still a lot of them, but not enough to push this disastrous bill through.
Anonymous
>>1251539 >I believe you will find that more "libshits" are unhappy with the government being unrepresentative of the population than republitards. Yet I can search far and wide and won't find any of you faggots arguing that the house of representatives should be changed back to how the founders designed it, because you have nothing but scorn for the country and it's founders.
Anonymous
>>1251539 >I believe you will find that more "libshits" are unhappy with the government being unrepresentative of the population than republitards. Libshit unhappiness with government no representing them is that the government doesn't have enough power to make others do as they want.
> Republitards only care about the government being unrepresentative of the people when it doesn't benefit them Sorry, who calls for Biden to pack the courts every-time they lose a SCOTUS case?
Who was calling for the abolishment of the electoral college when they lost an election?
Everytime libshits lose, they try to rig the system so they can't lose again.
They'll also cry about old white men hundreds of years ago holding back progress, white quoting Marx. What can you do besides mock them?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251545 Secession is unconstitutional by the Supremacy Clause anyway, so even if they voted to secede nothing would come from it unless they actually tried, which they wouldn't if they value their necks.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251552 >Sorry, who calls for Biden to pack the courts every-time they lose a SCOTUS case? The implication here is that the current SCOTUS represents the people, which is absolutely laughable.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251548 Have you tried using a search engine on the internet? Your not going to find much with your head up your own ass.
Anonymous
>>1251552 >Libshit unhappiness with government no representing them is that the government doesn't have enough power to make others do as they want. This is exactly right. The answer, every time always, is "we need more government to fix this."
Anonymous
>>1251563 >we need more government to fix this Bitch about how much government you have when your state's power grid is actually capable of keeping the heat on through winter or the air conditioning on through summer.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251512 That's been the maximum for a hundred years. The US population has grown too much for us to dip below the maximum unless 70% of the population dies off.
rebel trash get their asses handed to them again
rebel trash get their asses handed to them again Sat 30 Dec 2023 21:14:41 No. 1251660 Report >>1251504 >It will make the upcoming civil war pretty interesting Joe's cruise missiles vs your long guns.... should be very interesting
Anonymous
>>1251660 Taliban didn't have any cruise missiles until Joe gave them some. Vietcong didn't have any cruise missiles or gunships or nukes.
Anonymous
>>1251712 do you have anti air batteries like vietnam had? will you be obtaining them from the russians? i heard they don't achieve much but friendly fire these days
Anonymous
>>1251713 Oh... So the Vietcong were actually really good at shooting down American planes? And I guess Americans wouldn't be able to muster such a defense.
What a fuckin retard.
Anonymous
>>1251726 you seem upset, you're not even making sense anymore
Anonymous
>>1251728 The air force has never decided a war in the history of wars. Drones don't actually occupy territory.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251731 but bombing raids are a lot less unpopular when they aren't constantly being shot down, and america pulled out of vietnam due to unpopularity at home
Anonymous
>>1251712 lol are you saying you tards are as hardy as the vietcong or taliban?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251737 he's just larping as an american redneck
Anonymous
>>1251737 Most of the Vietcong were peasants that only knew how to grow rice and had never held a gun before the war.
Yeah, Americans are a lot more able to put up a fight than those guys were starting out. We aren't going to have to wait for the Russians to supply us with weapons, although that will probably happen too. It only makes sense that Russia would ultimately supply a rebel faction inside the US with military grade weapons, just like every other theater of war.
Anonymous
>>1251731 >The air force has never decided a war in the history of wars Desert Storm?
Anonymous
>>1251754 >Desert Storm? It's funny you say that because that quote is attributed to Sadam Hussein.
American planes definitely didn't secure Kuwaiti oil fields.
Anonymous
>>1251752 You and the rest of meal team 6 couldn't go 2 weeks without McDonalds.
Anonymous
>>1251759 I have my own livestock and grow my own food like most humans that have lived throughout history.
Anonymous
>>1251756 Because they weren't meant to? The goal of Desert Storm was to liberate Kuwait from Saddam and neutralize the Republican Guard.
Anonymous
>>1251765 Sadam wasn't hung by an f-35 either, dumbass.
Anonymous
>>1251771 The goal of Desert Storm was to liberate Kuwait from Saddam and neutralize the Republican Guard not to kill Saddam.
Anonymous
>>1251772 And the point was that the Air Force doesn't decide wars and certainly wouldn't decide an American civil war. Dumbasses.
Anonymous
>>1251774 What decides wars? Tanks? Do you think Kuwait would be liberated if there was only ground invasion with no air support?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251756 >American planes definitely didn't secure Kuwaiti oil fields. They did however evaporate one of the planet's largest tank armies in fucking no time and make the rush to Baghdad a fucking cakewalk.
Anonymous
>>1251775 >What decides wars? Easy answer, faggot. Troops on the ground. It's not even a serious question, obviously.
Or, I guess if you're willing to use nukes, a ground invasion becomes irrelevant, like Japan. The US wasn't willing to nuke Germany in the heart of Europe, though. And nobody has really been willing to use them since. I doubt they would be the deciding factor in a US civil war, either. Who would Joe Biden be nuking, exactly? Virginia? Texas? Maybe just Austin? Or how about Charleston?
Anonymous
>>1251786 Japan was prepared to surrender before the nukes, m8.
Anonymous
>>1251788 Yeah I'm sure that's why they were literally training their civvies to act as insurgents.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251790 so you're saying that's what right wingers would do? be unironic insurgents?
Anonymous
>>1251752 >he thinks the average American conservative is half as fit or determined as the average Vietnamese rice farmer Lmao. It's like the Dunning-Kruger effect but for being delusional; the more terminally online you are, the less you realize how terminally online you are. Stick to trolling facebook for tranny propaganda, Cletus.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251790 They were literally offering conditional surrender.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251794 Nta but is being starving and having stick-like physique your decision of "fit"?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251794 Cletus with a gun is going to beat Shang with a farming implement at least 9 times out of 10.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251761 And you'd still puss out in less than a week, so what
Anonymous
>>1251761 until sherman 2.0 pulls up
Anonymous
>>1251808 The US supposedly has 5,500 tanks and more than 330,000,000 people. Seems like a safe ratio.
Anonymous
>>1251810 how many tanks did the union have, remind us
Anonymous
>>1251812 >Appeal to a different technology since cruise missiles didn't work! Taliban didn't have tanks or helicopters until we gave them some. Vietcong didn't have tanks or flamethrowers or airplanes dropping napalm. They used bamboo sticks covered in shit hidden in trap doors. And they won, dipshit.
>1251712 >Taliban didn't have any cruise missiles until Joe gave them some. Vietcong didn't have any cruise missiles or gunships or nukes. Anonymous
>>1251813 remind us what the logistical differences are between a war in your own territory and a war across the globe
Anonymous
>>1251814 I imagine it's similar issues to using soldiers from a different part of the country to suppress locals who are familiar with the area, faggot.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1251786 Do you think Kuwait would be liberated if not for tanks or air support with just troops on the ground?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251934 Kuwait shouldn't be a country in the first place.
Anonymous
>>1251934 Which wars did America win without troops on the ground?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251945 Not a war, and was probably the Israelis.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251944 I didn't say troops don't win wars
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251582 only welfare retards died, problem solving itself. most texans have generators. inner city poverty scum died, good riddance. they probably arent from here.
