Wyoming GOP chairman floats secession after Cheney votes to impeach Trump

[shimerra]

I didn't set the bar that low. Pick any of the Baltic states for example (each has a GDP per capita half of Mississippi). I think most American states could individually do just as well. I don't even think that's especially controversial. Wyoming has some reasonable advantages compared to a lot of states too. Some of which I didn't even realize until I looked them up today. Honestly I half expected a GOP clown car and was surprised to see that they're doing a lot better than that.

I get you didn't actually set it that low. I used hyperbole to illustrate how ridiculously low you've set your bar, which honestly with you doubling down with this response I'm less sure that it was hyperbole and me just meaning to exaggerate and accidently coming closer to your actual stance than had I not exaggerated.


Wyoming as a stand alone state would be in a massively worse position than it is now. Period. Your attempts to mitigate that claim are no different than me attempting to fill an Olympic pool only by pissing in it. Especially since a lot of your advantages get crushed/reduced the second they loose the massive power of being in the US and throwing their weight on top of heavy hitters like Cali/Texas/new york which are basically countries in their own right. You're vastly overexaggerating how well people would do on their own and trying to use their current performance, frequently subsidized by federal dollars from other net payer states, to extrapolate their performance without said help.


Basically unless you're Cali, New York, or Texas or a similar state that basically has a GDP the size of many developed countries alone and even they would be hurting significantly by leaving vs the status quo. Because as you've been told many times, and ignored, Wyoming relies heavily on federal dollars and jobs and if they succeed that huge chunk of their economy disappears (aka what that GDP thing tires to measure, or I assume when you typed GOP) and they lack the state budget to cover it without massive and honestly economically unfeasible tax increases which would also be combined with huge cuts to services. My family is mostly from Montana and I've been to Wyoming regularly. Taking federal tax dollars away for roads alone, ignoring education and other things, would be knee capping both states economically speaking. Economies of scale my friend. And you're basically handwaving/ignoring all of that.

To counter all your non-sense I give you Brexit. The UK as a whole is in a massively better position to survive a break from the EU than Wyoming is a break from the US. It's bigger, more economically advantaged, and unlike Wyoming also spent most of its existence as its own entity and was far less linked to the EU than Wyoming is to the US. It even already had it's own currency and was a major financial center of the world. Just buying something on Amazon Brits saw major import fees, fees they used to not have to pay, and it's created a shipping nightmare for the UK. A $20.00 package from amazon would have a 30$ import fee on top of it, I forget the actual numbers but it's along those lines, and Wyoming would go through the same plus have a major issue with being completely landlocked/at the mercy of the U.S. These are costs you're ignoring while you upplay the tiny pittance that is Wyoming's GDP, because GDP's per capita is inflated by the power of those other states and heavy reliance/subsidization of federal dollars. To be fair some of that pain was self-inflicted by idiotic demands and bad negotiations/lieing to the UK people. But honestly given the stupidity/claims of the guy calling for succession he's far more likely to screw the process up than do it smoothly and even with a smoothe transition the best Wyoming could hope for is not as good as they had it before.


Have you even thought about what would Wyoming use for currency if they broke? Jesus that's a whole issue because either they stay with the dollar and their economic fortunes are at the mercy of the federal reserve, without the benefits of Congressional/federal representation, or they try and adopt their own currency which also has issues.

[Shadowferal]

No state would do well on its own. If at anytime such an idea could become a reality the state itself would have to seal its own borders to keep people from abandoning it.

[Zan15]

Wouldn't matter anyway...because they couldn't build a tunnel to Canada without crossing beneath other states.

well that is why i was wondering how deep state rights go, like the 5 miles off the coast rule for oceans

Though if you think about it N/S Dakota has sold out property rights to oil companies for decades why not sell the right to the property, or lease it for 99 years to the now People's Republic of Wyoming for a tunnel to Canada. Not sure about Montana tho.

Wonder if they will have a king or a dictator? Trump 2024 might mean for king of Wyoming?

- - - Updated - - -

No state would do well on its own. If at anytime such an idea could become a reality the state itself would have to seal its own borders to keep people from abandoning it.

i think there are quite a few that could pull it off.

CA would be almost easy mode. The only hard part would be from stopping it from splitting into 5+ parts.

TX if they get to keep all the oil rights and access to gulf rights.

NY if they cut off 80% of the state past westchester and closed out their boarders to the homeless from all the other 49 states.

Maybe Florida, but they would have to solve that huge bucket of money they would lose from Medicare and SS. Maybe an tax for out of country folks to come to disney land!!





Maine, because well its Maine who would even notice?? /s

[Egomaniac]

well that is why i was wondering how deep state rights go, like the 5 miles off the coast rule for oceans

Though if you think about it N/S Dakota has sold out property rights to oil companies for decades why not sell the right to the property, or lease it for 99 years to the now People's Republic of Wyoming for a tunnel to Canada. Not sure about Montana tho.

Oh...you've done it now, lol

[Zan15]

Oh...you've done it now, lol

wise ass. i needed a good chuckle tonight at work

[Egomaniac]

i think there are quite a few that could pull it off.

CA would be almost easy mode. The only hard part would be from stopping it from splitting into 5+ parts.

TX if they get to keep all the oil rights and access to gulf rights.

NY if they cut off 80% of the state past westchester and closed out their boarders to the homeless from all the other 49 states.

Maybe Florida, but they would have to solve that huge bucket of money they would lose from Medicare and SS. Maybe an tax for out of country folks to come to disney land!!

Maine, because well its Maine who would even notice?? /s

One advantage all of these States have in common when it comes to secession is that, unlike Wyoming, none of them would be landlocked on all sides by the country they just seceded from. :P

[Ivanstone]

Because as you've been told many times, and ignored, Wyoming relies heavily on federal dollars and jobs and if they succeed that huge chunk of their economy disappears (aka what that GDP thing tires to measure, or I assume when you typed GOP) and they lack the state budget to cover it without massive and honestly economically unfeasible tax increases which would also be combined with huge cuts to services. My family is mostly from Montana and I've been to Wyoming regularly. Taking federal tax dollars away for roads alone, ignoring education and other things, would be knee capping both states economically speaking. Economies of scale my friend. And you're basically handwaving/ignoring all of that.

Have you even thought about what would Wyoming use for currency if they broke? Jesus that's a whole issue because either they stay with the dollar and their economic fortunes are at the mercy of the federal reserve, without the benefits of Congressional/federal representation, or they try and adopt their own currency which also has issues.

What makes you think I ignored all that Federal cheese? Scroll up.

There's two halves to being a taker state. State government funding and state resident funding. New Mexico, Kentucky and Mississippi are both. Wyoming is only on the government side. So why is that? First, it takes a certain amount of money to manage any given slice of territory. Wyoming looks bad from a per capita perspective but the total amount of money it takes is actually pretty small. The other part is that Wyoming is unusual in that the Federal government owns 50% of its land and that's why there's a huge influx of federal money into Wyoming. Another element to that is resource royalties. Wyoming actually gives a shit tonne to the Federal government through royalties.

So what happens to all that federal land? A seceded Wyoming could potentially keep all of it and then a lot of money in state. Things like healthcare, roads, education, etc? Well they already do all that and there are smaller developed nations that do it as well. And yes the includes printing your own currency.

[Kellhound]

One advantage all of these States have in common when it comes to secession is that, unlike Wyoming, none of them would be landlocked on all sides by the country they just seceded from. :P

But they would control one of the most important transcontinental railroads and one of the main east-west interstates.

[Egomaniac]

But they would control one of the most important transcontinental railroads and one of the main east-west interstates.

That goes both ways. And the US has other ways of moving things around that don't require going through Wyoming. Wyoming, however, has no way of getting anything into or out of the state without crossing a border.

[Kellhound]

That goes both ways. And the US has other ways of moving things around that don't require going through Wyoming. Wyoming, however, has no way of getting anything into or out of the state without crossing a border.

Actually, no. There is not enough surplus capacity east-west to cut Wyoming out.

[Egomaniac]

Actually, no. There is not enough surplus capacity east-west to cut Wyoming out.

It would slow things down some sure....but they can go around. Some new infrastructure would need to be placed eventually.

Wyoming however has no alternatives at all. None. They wouldn't be able to get anything in or out of the "country" without crossing an American Border. No Planes, No Trains, and No Trucks.

[Kellhound]

It would slow things down some sure....but they can go around. Some new infrastructure would need to be placed eventually.

Wyoming however has no alternatives at all. None. They wouldn't be able to get anything in or out of the "country" without crossing an American Border. No Planes, No Trains, and No Trucks.

It would cost billions to replace the capacity of the transcon railway or I-80 through Wyoming. There is this little matter of crossing the Rockies to contend with. Its not a matter of slowing things down some, it would slow things down a lot.

[Tazkar]

It would cost billions to replace the capacity of the transcon railway or I-80 through Wyoming. There is this little matter of crossing the Rockies to contend with. Its not a matter of slowing things down some, it would slow things down a lot.

I-70 Already goes through the Rockies, it wouldn't be that hard to adjust other parts of I-80 outside of wyoming to connect to it or other Interstates. Does it take longer to go through the Rockies on I-70? Yes since it has to overall follow the curve of the mountains outside of a few tunnels. But as the other poster said people can go around Wyoming its not some damn lynchpin of anything at all in the United States Logistics wise. There are options even if they may be more inefficient at first.

[Egomaniac]

It would cost billions to replace the capacity of the transcon railway or I-80 through Wyoming. There is this little matter of crossing the Rockies to contend with. Its not a matter of slowing things down some, it would slow things down a lot.

Billions is actually not that much.

Mind you, I'm not saying they can do any of this overnight... it would take time to complete... but roads and rails can be re-routed around Wyoming. Planes can Fly around Wyoming's Airspace.

But no matter how inconvenient it is for the states...it is even more "inconvenient" to Wyoming...because there is no "re-routing" that Wyoming can do. Nothing would ever be able to enter or leave Wyoming without crossing an American border. So it's not like they are in any position to play hardball.

[Kellhound]

Billions is actually not that much.

Mind you, I'm not saying they can do any of this overnight... it would take time to complete... but roads and rails can be re-routed around Wyoming. Planes can Fly around Wyoming's Airspace.

But no matter how inconvenient it is for the states...it is even more "inconvenient" to Wyoming...because there is no "re-routing" that Wyoming can do. Nothing would ever be able to leave Wyoming without crossing an American border. So it's not like they are in any position to play hardball.

You are talking about $30 billion to replace the rail capacity, and likely a decade or more to build it. And that's assuming no other states joined Wyoming.

The US is part of an international treaty allowing commercial overflight of US territory, you know that right?

- - - Updated - - -

I-70 Already goes through the Rockies, it wouldn't be that hard to adjust other parts of I-80 outside of wyoming to connect to it or other Interstates. Does it take longer to go through the Rockies on I-70? Yes since it has to overall follow the curve of the mountains outside of a few tunnels. But as the other poster said people can go around Wyoming its not some damn lynchpin of anything at all in the United States Logistics wise. There are options even if they may be more inefficient at first.

I-70 is not built to handle the traffic increase it would see, and it would be very very expensive (and perhaps environmentally prohibitive) to increase it. It cost the equivalent of $75 million per mile to build through Glenwood Canyon, and it wasn't completed until the early 90s.

[Egomaniac]

You are talking about $30 billion to replace the rail capacity, and likely a decade or more to build it. And that's assuming no other states joined Wyoming.

I've already stated it would not be an overnight thing. Yeah, it would take time and money.

As for the $30 billion...that's really not a lot of money. Wyoming is already a "taker" state...so they just move the money around.

And yes, we're assuming no other state joins with Wyoming...because the whole idea is that Wyoming wouldn't be able to stand alone. If they need other states to go with them...than that just proves the case.

The US is part of an international treaty allowing commercial overflight of US territory, you know that right?

The US is yes.

But Wyoming would no longer be part of the US.

New Country, New Treaty.

[Elegiac]

It would cost billions to replace the capacity of the transcon railway or I-80 through Wyoming.

That's nice.

Now do how much money it would take Wyoming to set itself up as an independent polity and whether or not its tax base of two white dudes and a sheep can afford it on top of the 1/50th of the federal debt they'd be taking with them since you guys are all about a flat percentage rather than means adjustment just like with taxes, right?

- - - Updated - - -

The US is yes.

But Wyoming would no longer be part of the US.

New Country, New Treaty.

Let's be real.

Any red state making a serious attempt to secede would play out exactly like Brexit in that the seceding state will probably be plagued by political incompetence and end up cutting a bad deal with the remaining US and desperately trying to spin it as a token win.

[Egomaniac]

Let's be real.

Any red state making a serious attempt to secede would play out exactly like Brexit in that the seceding state will probably be plagued by political incompetence and end up cutting a bad deal with the remaining US and desperately trying to spin it as a token win.

That's likely true...but even if they had the greatest statemen in the world negotiating for them...they just don't have a strong hand.

[Elegiac]

That's likely true...but even if they had the greatest statemen in the world negotiating for them...they just don't have a strong hand.

Noooo but you see Wyoming would cost at least thirty billion dollars to bypass so all Wyoming needs to do is make a nuisance of themselves to the point that amount is more cost effective than — wait... /s

That feel when “if you dare ask for higher wages you’ll be replaced by a robot that’s cheaper” ends up biting the Republicans in the ass, rofl.

[Shalcker]

No state would do well on its own. If at anytime such an idea could become a reality the state itself would have to seal its own borders to keep people from abandoning it.

When USSR disbanded noone needed to seal their own borders - and millions of people "abandoned" peripheral republics.