The GOP candidate had said last week that states could secede if they felt the need to do so.

The GOP candidate had said last week that states could secede if they felt the need to do so.

Nikki Haley, fresh off her Civil War history refresher on this week’s Saturday Night Live, appeared to remember what the Constitution allowed when it comes to state secession: nothing.

Haley again walked back her comments saying states could choose if they wanted to secede from the U.S., telling CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that she didn’t believe the Constitution afforded them that right. It came days after she told radio host Charlamagne tha God that states like Texas could “make the decisions that their people want to make.”

“According to the Constitution, they can’t,” Haley told CNN. “What I think they have the right to do is have the power to protect themselves and do all that. Texas has talked about that for a long time. The Constitution doesn’t allow for that.”

The GOP presidential candidate then tried to pivot to why Texas would consider such an option, citing Gov. Greg Abbott’s frustration with the Biden administration’s handling of the Southern border and the state’s desire to protect itself.

  • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
    11·
    11 months ago

    It’s not a dictatorship. It was the will of the people as executed by a democratic government. That’s called democracy. 

    It’s not a dictatorship just because you don’t like the result. 

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.townEnglish
      213·
      11 months ago

      And if the will of the people changes in favor of secession, such as the movements in Texas and New Hampshire? Those two states are the ones where secession is actually seriously discussed.

      • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
        11·
        11 months ago

        the tyranny of a few loud traitors don’t get to rule through fear and terror in a democracy. what they’re doing, as the confederates did, is illegal-- not to mention the fact that both sedition and treason.

        Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: “🤔🤔🤔”[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

        The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

        • shortwavesurfer@monero.townEnglish
          19·
          11 months ago

          Americans in general seem to have a knack for not giving a shit what is illegal at the time. If we did, we would not have women’s rights, equal rights for black people, gay marriage, legal marijuana (in some places), or a country at all for that matter. Because it was treason to secede from England and declare ourselves independent, yet we did it anyway.

          • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
            8·
            11 months ago

            Americans in general seem to have a knack for not giving a shit what is illegal at the time

            actually, the vast majority of us do

            If we did, we would not have women’s rights, equal rights for black people, gay marriage, legal marijuana (in some places), or a country at all for that matter

            protesting against tyrannical and unjust laws != not giving a shit what is illegal

            Because it was treason to secede from England and declare ourselves independent, yet we did it anyway.

            because we were fighting for freedom and independence against the tyranny of a dictatorial monarchy so that we could establish a democracy run by the people.

            it’s sad that, even after having this explained to you clearly, you simply cannot connect the dots. but i suppose it makes sense when your whole worldview is constructed from cherry-picked facts connected by spurious logic.