If states can’t rely on federal help for emergencies then there really isn’t a reason to be in a union. Secession is the next logical step.
msgodel · 14h ago
It's been a long time coming. Huge parts of the country have absolute mutual disagreements on basic features of reality. Regardless of who's right people like that just can't peacefully share a state.
AnimalMuppet · 16h ago
Hardly. Federal help in emergencies is not the only benefit from being in a union. Not the most significant, either.
redczar · 15h ago
The three main reasons for being in a union are shared resources, customs union, and mutual aid. If states can’t rely on mutual aid then eventually more and more people will wonder why they are in the union. Texas threatens to secede every time a Democrat is elected president.
AnimalMuppet · 14h ago
"Mutual aid" is mostly defense. FEMA is a very small part of it.
redczar · 14h ago
However you want to label things is fine with me. We disagree with the label and you think not helping each other out during a disaster is no big deal. You are wrong on this. As Trumps continues down the path he is taking the reason for being in the union becomes increasingly unjustifiable. If states that are liberal leaning can’t get aid from the monies they send the federal government then the people there will question why they should remain in the union.
Texas Republicans think talk of secession is justifiable when a Democrat is President. A much more sane reason for questioning the union is not getting help from the federal government.
Texas Republicans think talk of secession is justifiable when a Democrat is President. A much more sane reason for questioning the union is not getting help from the federal government.
These posts and articles are very triggering.
In my case I rename them all to the same word, something marginalizing like bub or guy or dink. It hasn't impacted readability.