あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]bcunningham9801Nevaduh 6 ポイント7 ポイント

texas and georgia couldnt survive on its own. Shit georgia is the state equivelvant f the short bus

[–]TaldoableTexas 13 ポイント14 ポイント

If any state could do it, Texas would be the most likely.

[–]PerNihilAdNihil 13 ポイント14 ポイント

you mean california

texas would have to get off the government tit before it could ever be self sufficient

[–]TaldoableTexas 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the people of Texas as opposed to the Texas state government.

[–]InZehInterfectorFuck shadowbans. 1 ポイント2 ポイント

But without a government, you'd have anarchy ;)

[–]rockythecockyTexas 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Which is Ron Paul's master plan.

[–]ProspoRepublic of Texas 5 ポイント6 ポイント

And...

[–]earatomicboIllinois Corrupt Politician 4 ポイント5 ポイント

California would have to pay off all its debt.

[–]PerNihilAdNihil -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

In order to do that, we would first have to arrest Arnold Schwarzenegger and his gang of financial terrorists who conspired to bankrupt california for private fun and profit, and then we would need to seize the assets of all of these criminals - it still may not be enough, but this is the price we paid for letting crooks talk us into deregulation

[–]rockythecockyTexas 2 ポイント3 ポイント

California? The state that leads in cities going bankrupt? Right, I think you meant Hawaii the Dakotas. And even after Hawaii the Dakotas, Texas would be much better prepared than California. Texas has 1/3rd of the US's oil supply and the Port of Houston is the offloading point of over 2/3rds of the US's imported oil (and has some of the most important refineries in the world that the US would need to pay to use). So getting off government support is rather simple financially, as Texas, unlike California, would not be lacking in revenue. Also, unlike California, Texas has it's own power grid.

Edit: Changed my mind, North and South Dakota would be the most. Tiny population, I'm pretty sure they have a lot of valuable copper and other natural resources, lots of farm land. They win be default because its hard to kill something thats barely even alive.

[–]RinKouCalifornia 5 ポイント6 ポイント

California also has a budget surplus, the largest port in the US, and has the 8th largest economy in the world. Plus we produce the vast majority of the US's supply of fruits and vegetables, though grain and water will be issues.

Texas does have its own power grid, so you do have that going for you guys, but it's ridiculous to bash California or its capability to survive independently. Where's the solidarity, bro?

[–]Ave3ng3d7XNorth Dakota 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Hard to kill something thats barely even alive.

ಠ_ಠ Do you even Bakken oil boom?

[–]Ave3ng3d7XNorth Dakota 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I would actually think North Dakota would do quite nicely. Farms, just as much oil as texas, oil refineries, coal mines, power plants, nuclear weapons... (of course they are useless without authorization codes)

[–]TaldoableTexas 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Their biggest weakness would be a lack of port access, I would think.

[–]rockythecockyTexas 2 ポイント3 ポイント

More like they wouldn't be allowed to survive on its own. Between all that delicious freedom juice oil, the really important military bases at San Antonio, El Paso, and Killeen, and the fact that Texas produces a massive amount of the US's cereal grains, Texas would be one of the last states the US would allow to leave without a fighting tooth and nail. And while we have a lot of guns, we don't have enough for that.

Georgia... I don't know, I just didn't want to make them feel inadequate by only talking about Texas. Um... they have the US's Strategic Sweet Tea Reserve or something.

[–]Lt_Danimal_ICE_CREAMViking 0 ポイント1 ポイント

And peaches and peanuts. Don't forget Atlanta too. We have Lockheed Martin. And several military bases: Dobbins AFB, Moody AFB, King's Bay Ballistic Nuclear Submarine Base, and Fort Benning Army Base. We're kinda stacked.

[–]bluefoot55Indiana 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It and South Carolina.