Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Why DC Statehood Can’t or Won’t Happen

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nevada Convert said:

Remind me again what they have to offer. That would be like adding NMSU or Idaho to the MWC.

They’re a US territory and American citizens.  That’s what they offer. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Not going to happen.  The states have to approve and they won’t.  

Do it anyways. Raise holy hell . Fight  back. There is also another provision in the constitution to bypass congress to make constitutional amendments by gathering enough states together. Make an amendment that there can only be 9 Justices, make another amendment that there can be no additional states added to the union without 2/3 of the states agreeing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

REPEAL the PERMANENT APPORTIONMENT ACT

it checks the boxes for both sides without fundamentally changing the Senate or packing Courts. I may sound like a broken record but I think this is the solution both sides can agree on. 

I’ve advocated for this for awhile. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Do it anyways. Raise holy hell . Fight  back. There is also another provision in the constitution to bypass congress to make constitutional amendments by gathering enough states together. Make an amendment that there can only be 9 Justices, make another amendment that there can be no additional states added to the union without 2/3 of the states agreeing. 

The problem with calling a constitutional convention is you’re opening up everything. It’s a very slippery slope, things like the 2nd amendment could easily be repealed, for example. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sean327 said:

What many of fail to realize is there is a large segment of the population that is tired of both side’s shit, and all they want is to be left the hell alone to live their lives as they see fit. That segment grows everyday. I believe that it’s going to be sooner rather than later that a 3rd party becomes strong enough to challenge the tyranny of two party rule.

I think that will happen. But it will kill one of the existing parties rather than create a true multi-party system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Both parties are guilty of doing that and you know it. Both parties have blood on their hands. It’s the biggest reason why we have a perpetual stalemate in Washington. People who believe their party isn’t just as much of a problem as the other guy’s party are straight up clowns.

Of course though I would argue the Dems problems are more idealistic solutions that don’t work.   And I said in post after post both parties were at fault.  

lastly after I hit send I edited it as saying no moral compass is incorrect.  They are driven by the Christian Right which has a judgemental compass but one nevertheless.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sean327 said:

What many of fail to realize is there is a large segment of the population that is tired of both side’s shit, and all they want is to be left the hell alone to live their lives as they see fit. That segment grows everyday. I believe that it’s going to be sooner rather than later that a 3rd party becomes strong enough to challenge the tyranny of two party rule.

From your mouth to God’s ears

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

If you are doing it for only political purposes , yes 

Wait, huh? We've been creating states for political purposes from the beginning. Nevada is a great example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mugtang said:

The problem with calling a constitutional convention is you’re opening up everything. It’s a very slippery slope, things like the 2nd amendment could easily be repealed, for example. 

I agree, but if they are going to my add states and pack the courts to relegate conservatives to permanent minority then we don’t have a choice. We have to use all options to fight back, as a last resort I feel we would have to leave the Union. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Wait, huh? We've been creating states for political purposes from the beginning. Nevada is a great example. 

Yeah I know. That is one if the main reasons why 500,000 people died and many more were horribly injured during the civil war.  The south wanted to add slave states , the north wanted free states, add in the fact that we were expanding westward and it blew up into a civil war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I agree, but if they are going to my add states and pack the courts to relegate conservatives to permanent minority then we don’t have a choice. We have to use all options to fight back, as a last resort I feel we would have to leave the Union. 

Why would conservatives have to leave the Union?  I mean aren’t conservatives (actually Trump but he’s not a conservative) doing that to liberals right now though? 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Why would conservatives have to leave the Union?  I mean aren’t conservatives (actually Trump but he’s not a conservative) doing that to liberals right now though? 

With the SCOTUS situation?  No.  The GOP is abiding by historical norms and precedent.  Just as they were with Garland.  Adding Puerto Rico would also be abiding by historical norms and precedent.  D.C. would not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I agree, but if they are going to my add states and pack the courts to relegate conservatives to permanent minority then we don’t have a choice. We have to use all options to fight back, as a last resort I feel we would have to leave the Union. 

I’m not sure which way Idaho would go if the Union split.  California, Oregon, Hawaii and Washington would for sure go one way with Nevada and Arizona likely joining them.   Idaho is very tied to those markets.  If the country splits a favorable trade agreement may not be guaranteed.   Many business interests would push Idaho to go with their primary markets.  Utah is a bit in the same boat.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mugtang said:

Why would conservatives have to leave the Union?  I mean aren’t conservatives (actually Trump but he’s not a conservative) doing that to liberals right now though? 

I don’t follow what you are saying here. 
I don’t  want to live in a country where the the Democrat party is only adding states to give themselves political leverage for years to come, and with a packed Supreme Court that rubber stamps everything. Sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

With the SCOTUS situation?  No.  The GOP is abiding by historical norms and precedent.  Just as they were with Garland.  Adding Puerto Rico would also be abiding by historical norms and precedent.  D.C. would not.

 

Please post the precedent for denying a vote for a nominee almost a year prior to the new admin.  I’m not saying rejecting one.  I’m saying not allowing a vote.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I don’t follow what you are saying here. 
I don’t  want to live in a country where the the Democrat party is only adding states to give themselves political leverage for years to come, and with a packed Supreme Court that rubber stamps everything. Sorry. 

Basically you are saying with the Permanent Apportionment Act, the Senate and the Electoral College you have a stacked deck for your side and you want to keep it that way or you will take your ball and leave.   
 

Got it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Please post the precedent for denying a vote for a nominee almost a year prior to the new admin.  I’m not saying rejecting one.  I’m saying not allowing a vote.   

It was not even until 1916 that SCOTUS nomination debates were down outside of smoky back rooms and made public, similar to Garland.  It was discussed amongthe party in control, the votest were not there.  You have over 200 years of precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I’m not sure which way Idaho would go if the Union split.  California, Oregon, Hawaii and Washington would for sure go one way with Nevada and Arizona likely joining them.   Idaho is very tied to those markets.  If the country splits a favorable trade agreement may not be guaranteed.   Many business interests would push Idaho to go with their primary markets.  Utah is a bit in the same boat.  

Arizona isn’t following California anywhere. Even liberal Arizonans hate California with a passion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sean327 said:

What many of fail to realize is there is a large segment of the population that is tired of both side’s shit, and all they want is to be left the hell alone to live their lives as they see fit. That segment grows everyday. I believe that it’s going to be sooner rather than later that a 3rd party becomes strong enough to challenge the tyranny of two party rule.

It won't happen because every divisive issue will be co-opted by the GOP or Dems. We haven't had a real shift since the Whigs more or less morphed into the Republican Party. We've had the same basic parties ever since, although there have been several philosophical changes within each party. And it's these philosophical changes which co-opt any potential third party from emerging as a real threat. 

This wiki page does a good job of breaking down the history of the parties, different eras, and political shifts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#Fifth_and_Sixth_Party_Systems_since_1933

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...