Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 33 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      Talk about a proxy fight. All about control of Congress. Could be the issue that ends the filibuster?

      The GOP doesn’t want it so they are out talking about land mass and how its a den of criminals (Scalise)

      Statehood is about representation, so population?

      When Hawaii was made a state it had 622,000 people. Right now DC is 700,000

      Wyoming is a state and it has 570,000

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      the history

      “Efforts to add Alaska and Hawaii as states with “an equal footing with the other States” had picked up in their intensity after World War II when the strategic importance of both territories became more urgent. However, politics played a role in the statehood process in a divided Washington.

      The admission of a state brings with it new electoral votes and new representatives in Congress. The Democrats during the 1950s favored Alaska as the 49th state, while the Republicans wanted Hawaii admitted by itself, with both sides believing there was a political benefit to the admissions process.

      President Eisenhower had publicly supported Hawaiian statehood, but he had not supported Alaskan statehood until 1958 when it became clear that both territories would need to be admitted as states to keep a political balance in Washington.

      In January 1959, Alaska became the 49th state, which accelerated the Hawaii statehood process. On March 11, 1959: the Senate voted 75-15 in favor of the Admissions Act, with the House approving the same bill in a 323 to 89 vote on March 12, 1959.

      During the 1940s and 1950s, there was also a serious debate about the status of Puerto Rico as a potential state, or as an independent nation. Today, the statehood debate for Puerto Rico remains controversial. There is also a statehood movement in the District of Columbia.”

      Is there a Trumplandia territory out there?

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      Maybe Puerto Rico could be the counterbalance to DC?

      Oh . . . wait . . . maybe NOT

      “An inspector general’s report on the withholding of aid, obtained by the Washington Post, also says that Carson and another former HUD official refused to cooperate with the investigation while Trump was in office. The inspector general found that Trump’s White House set up “unprecedented procedural hurdles” to prevent federal dollars from flowing to Puerto Rico, but quickly approved similar disaster relief requests from Florida and Texas.”

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      dare I say, almost “mocking”

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3703

      Super shocked the cove’s resident recent convert to the Democratic party wants DC to be a State. I’m sure it has nothing to do with Democrats getting more power. But where do you stand on stacking the court? Waiting with baited breath.

      I’m guessing the amount of court additions should be somehow associated with the number it takes to force through all the really great changes to America that we really need for everything to be perfect.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      I’m sure it has nothing to do with Democrats getting more power.

      Talk about a proxy fight. All about control of Congress



      @JBear
      , posting like KKKChron is one thing, but reading like Buggsy???

      Pull yourself together, man. Get a Snickers, maybe.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      But where do you stand on stacking the court?

      hilarious timing. Heres an actual ruling TODAY . . and actual product of actual GOP court stacking (blocking Garland, installing ACB) because this is the Trump wing REVERSING prior precedent

      Happy to chalk your post up to you “going through some things” today. LOL.

      The alternative would be that you are a typical Trumper, which is to say LITERALLY oblivious of reality around you and forever gaslighting as a result

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      just as a small addition to the lunacy

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      ut where do you stand on stacking the court?

      unusual timing, huh?

    • Roy

      Participant
      Post count: 3766

      Super shocked the cove’s resident recent convert to the Democratic party wants DC to be a State. I’m sure it has nothing to do with Democrats getting more power. But where do you stand on stacking the court? Waiting with baited breath.

      I’m guessing the amount of court additions should be somehow associated with the number it takes to force through all the really great changes to America that we really need for everything to be perfect.

      Shocking. Politics in government? What is the world coming to. But I’m sure if the Republicans would have no qualms stacking the Senate, or the Supreme Court. Its not like the Republicans have any scruples whatsoever. They have none. So yes its political, but lets not give the Republicans any high ground. They don’t deserve it.

      IMO there should be no territories in the United States. If we aren’t an imperialist nation we shouldn’t have territories. Either make them states, fold them into states, or cut them loose to be independent countries.

      And furthermore, there should be a realigning of states. I believe in federalism, but there is no reason we can’t realign the states to represent the population. Sure you can divide California into three. Dakota doesn’t need to be North and South. You could easily lump in ND, SD, Montana and Wyoming into one state. Florida could be two states.

      Not gonna happen obviously, but its what should happen. The Senate is ridiculously unbalanced.
      Federalism is supposed to keep the integrity of state governments, but isn’t supposed to be a tool to maintain minority rule. In the long run, if you don’t do something to rebalance the States you are going to have a permanent situation where the Senate, who approves the Supreme Court justices, does not fairly represent the nation.

      • jbear

        Participant
        Post count: 3703

        It’s a dangerous precedent that the left seems to be marching in unison towards. We get a lot of how it’s retribution for Trump doing this or that but nobody wants to admit that both of these movements are actually taking everything to defcon 3 because of one legally appointed supreme court justice.

        Or because you don’t like the current makup of the court. I’m sorry but it’s indefensible. If you think things are ugly in politics now just wait.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      Its NOT coincidence that the DC statehood issue gains momentum now, at a time when the GOP chooses to dismantle police reforms, suppress voting, gerrymander to stay in power, stack the courts under Trump and more.

      all of this is a reaction to the overt racism that exists in today’s politics

      The (over)reaction to Trumpism is underway

      This is why the filibuster is really at risk

      The GOP doesn’t care because its under existential pressure, so its hoping to use these same issues to motivate its own people to go to the ballot box. Literally, a bonfire of the vanities and one more step in the destruction of America.

      • jbear

        Participant
        Post count: 3703

        This tweet is complete bullshit and you know it. It’s all politics.

        The D.C. African American community is just the best way to paint the picture and to try to convince people that it’s a good idea.

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 921

      There is no reasonable Constitutional or legal argument to make Washington DC a state. The District was created in 1790 from ten square miles of land ceded to the federal government by Maryland and Virginia.4 The purpose of the District is stated in Federalist No. 43. The Framers of the Constitution believed that the federal government needed to have control over the seat of government—over the place where it was to conduct its business—so that it would not find itself beholden to a particular state government for its day-to-day needs.

      That bit was cut and paste but it shows that it will need a Constitutional amendment to change it.

      What’s more, the current population of Washington is in the region of 700k. That is the base argument why it should become a State. That is, more people live in that Washington DC than some States like Wisconsin, etc.

      If that is the argument then cities like NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia also deserve Statehood right? But, those cities (with the exception of Houston) are the prime drivers why those States have Democrat Senators which they will probably lose if they make many of those cities States.

      Therefore it has nothing to do with representation. It has everything to do with adding 2 new Democrat Senators. Everybody on the planet knows it, some just don’t want to say it.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      Lol

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3703

      Super shocked the cove’s resident recent convert to the Democratic party wants DC to be a State. I’m sure it has nothing to do with Democrats getting more power. But where do you stand on stacking the court? Waiting with baited breath.

      I’m guessing the amount of court additions should be somehow associated with the number it takes to force through all the really great changes to America that we really need for everything to be perfect.

      Shocking. Politics in government? What is the world coming to. But I’m sure if the Republicans would have no qualms stacking the Senate, or the Supreme Court. Its not like the Republicans have any scruples whatsoever. They have none. So yes its political, but lets not give the Republicans any high ground. They don’t deserve it.

      IMO there should be no territories in the United States. If we aren’t an imperialist nation we shouldn’t have territories. Either make them states, fold them into states, or cut them loose to be independent countries.

      And furthermore, there should be a realigning of states. I believe in federalism, but there is no reason we can’t realign the states to represent the population. Sure you can divide California into three. Dakota doesn’t need to be North and South. You could easily lump in ND, SD, Montana and Wyoming into one state. Florida could be two states.

      Not gonna happen obviously, but its what should happen. The Senate is ridiculously unbalanced.
      Federalism is supposed to keep the integrity of state governments, but isn’t supposed to be a tool to maintain minority rule. In the long run, if you don’t do something to rebalance the States you are going to have a permanent situation where the Senate, who approves the Supreme Court justices, does not fairly represent the nation.

      All the stacking that’s going on right now is on the blue side of the ledger.

      The founding fathers never intended for D.C. to be a state. The entire reason it was created was because the founders believed that the seat of government power should not be beholden to any State and that the seat of power should be outside the jurisdiction of any state. Not only is making D.C. a state against the wishes of the Framers but it will create the most powerful State in the entire Country and further centralize all power in Washington D.C. just when most Americans believe in some form of “The Swamp”. Make no mistake, a large share of D.C. residents are part of that machine. Government employee’s, bureaucrats, lobbyists, staffers. O

      f course Democrats and Karma are focused on the black community. Don’t be led by the nose that’s all I’m saying Roy. Karma is dodging all the real issues to make it seem it’s about an oppressed community of African Americans.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      The entire reason it was created was because the founders believed that the seat of government power should not be beholden to any State and that the seat of power should be outside the jurisdiction of any state.

      This ^^^ talking point appears twice here in succession. Not a coincidence

      The same person who wrote that in the Federalist (James Madison) also said that slaves were property and person. The Founder also didn’t believe women should vote. etc etc etc

      Karma is dodging all the real issues

      what are the real issues because its NOT Federalist 43? lol

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      above Spartan both cotes Federalist 43 AND argues that “If that is the argument then cities like NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia also deserve Statehood right?”

      Federalist 43

      “To admit new States into the Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.”

      The peril of selective citation to historical documents. and of the cocoon

      the same Federalist 43 says this:

      “”To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States”

      The threat discussed in 43 is that a state legislature would effectively control the government if an existing state was used as the Capitol. No 43 is written to . . . “To the People of the State of New York:” It was a long compromise to form DC based on principles that dont even exist today

      On top of that DC was — just like Hawaii — a “territory”

      “in 1871 self-government was granted for the first time to Washingtonians. Under the new territorial government, which lasted just three years, numerous city improvement projects were undertaken: modern schools and markets were erected, streets were paved, outdoor lighting was installed, sewers were built, and more than 50,000 trees were planted.”

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3703

      This ^^^ talking point appears twice here in succession. Not a coincidence

      The same person who wrote that in the Federalist (James Madison) also said that slaves were property and person. The Founder also didn’t believe women should vote. etc etc etc

      OMG Karma. Do you even hear yourself?

      The reason I made that point is because it was drilled into my brain since High School even though they probably don’t teach it anymore. Later in life I got pretty interested in the constitution as a Ron Paul bro. On my office wall I have a copy of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of independence. Call me weird but I’m not going to apologize for it.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      This ^^^ talking point appears twice here in succession. Not a coincidence

      The same person who wrote that in the Federalist (James Madison) also said that slaves were property and person. The Founder also didn’t believe women should vote. etc etc etc

      OMG Karma. Do you even hear yourself?

      The reason I made that point is because it was drilled into my brain since High School even though they probably don’t teach it anymore. Later in life I got pretty interested in the constitution as a Ron Paul bro. On my office wall I have a copy of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of independence. Call me weird but I’m not going to apologize for it.

      Did you skip school often?

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      Dennis DiConcini

      “ But when Sen. Goldwater and I discussed representation for D.C., we believed these issues simply did not outweigh the residents’ most basic rights as Americans.

      D.C., then as now, had no voting representation in the House or Senate. Most D.C. residents, then as now, were people of color. Congress also, then as now, could override their local laws and budgets. That struck us both as wrong, and Goldwater thought that, in 1978, fixing it was overdue.

      Goldwater was one of 19 Republican senators who voted for equal D.C. representation that year, ranging from moderates like Howard Baker to conservatives like Strom Thurmond.

      Sen. Baker said “we simply cannot continue to deny 700,000 American citizens their right to equal representation in the national government,” while Sen. Thurmond explained “the residents of the District of Columbia deserve the right to representation in congress if for no other reason than simple fairness.”

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 921

      Dennis DiConcini

      “ But when Sen. Goldwater and I discussed representation for D.C., we believed these issues simply did not outweigh the residents’ most basic rights as Americans.

      D.C., then as now, had no voting representation in the House or Senate. Most D.C. residents, then as now, were people of color. Congress also, then as now, could override their local laws and budgets. That struck us both as wrong, and Goldwater thought that, in 1978, fixing it was overdue.

      Goldwater was one of 19 Republican senators who voted for equal D.C. representation that year, ranging from moderates like Howard Baker to conservatives like Strom Thurmond.

      Sen. Baker said “we simply cannot continue to deny 700,000 American citizens their right to equal representation in the national government,” while Sen. Thurmond explained “the residents of the District of Columbia deserve the right to representation in congress if for no other reason than simple fairness.”

      The argument here is that the Constitutional conditions preventing DC from becoming a state is invalid because it is against the Constitutinally protected rights of the residents of DC. Or to summarize, the Constitution is wrong because the Constitution says so.

      Interesting.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      Dennis DiConcini

      “ But when Sen. Goldwater and I discussed representation for D.C., we believed these issues simply did not outweigh the residents’ most basic rights as Americans.

      D.C., then as now, had no voting representation in the House or Senate. Most D.C. residents, then as now, were people of color. Congress also, then as now, could override their local laws and budgets. That struck us both as wrong, and Goldwater thought that, in 1978, fixing it was overdue.

      Goldwater was one of 19 Republican senators who voted for equal D.C. representation that year, ranging from moderates like Howard Baker to conservatives like Strom Thurmond.

      Sen. Baker said “we simply cannot continue to deny 700,000 American citizens their right to equal representation in the national government,” while Sen. Thurmond explained “the residents of the District of Columbia deserve the right to representation in congress if for no other reason than simple fairness.”

      The argument here is that the Constitutional conditions preventing DC from becoming a state is invalid because it is against the Constitutinally protected rights of the residents of DC. Or to summarize, the Constitution is wrong because the Constitution says so.

      Interesting.

      tats ot actually it at all lol

      Its that DC Statehood doesn’t mean no federal enclave (obviously) and DC now is not DC then. There was a reason was arguing for a federal enclave, just like there was a reason he was arguing slaves are property and people

      its 2021

      the post was about GOP agreement dating back to the 1970s

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 921

      the post was about GOP agreement dating back to the 1970s

      Some GOPs. And it doesn’t make the Democrats argument any more honorable.

      The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such Dis­trict (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Con­gress, become the Seat of the Gov­ernment of the United States… (The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17)

      I personally do not hold to the argument that Washington deserves or warrants Statehood. However if the process is followed and others think otherwise, my opinion is irrelevant. If Democrats truly believe this to be the right thing to do, then put it to the people and let them decide.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      then put it to the people and let them decide.

      Representative democracy not direct

      • jbear

        Participant
        Post count: 3703

        I agree with Karma… that hurts.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      In Michigan the people voted BY REFERENDUM to have no cause absentee balloting. The gop is trying to reverse it.

      Can’t get the story straight. Let the people decide. We lost. Don’t let the people decide

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 921

      then put it to the people and let them decide.

      Representative democracy not direct

      But they get to indirectly decide during a constitutional amendment which is what I was referring to.

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 921

      In Michigan the people voted BY REFERENDUM to have no cause absentee balloting. The gop is trying to reverse it.

      Can’t get the story straight. Let the people decide. We lost. Don’t let the people decide

      No they are not.

      They ARE making some changes to “make voting easier and cheating harder”, some of which seem fine to me, others are a bit of a wtf at a cursory glance. I have not studied it in depth. What I don’t see is any attempt to reverse the referendum. That would take a State Constitutional Amendment which would require another referendum which I don’t see anywhere on the horizon.

      Could be wrong though if you want to point the error of my ways without some smarmy comment that doesn’t actually point out any necessary corrections :)

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 5849

      Masking voter disenfranchisement as “stopping cheaters”… lol

      I’ve got some beachfront property to sell you!

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 921

      Masking voter disenfranchisement as “stopping cheaters”… lol

      I’ve got some beachfront property to sell you!

      Bit like counting every vote. Even those we haven’t cast yet because we don’t know how many we need :)

      Works both ways. And as long as that beach front property is on the Gulf coast ….

      • FireLicht2020

        Participant
        Post count: 5849

        But there was no fraud…

        This bill is a reaction to Abraham’s grassroots movement that flipped Georgia.

        It is voter supression…

        You can put lipstick on this pig all you like

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      In Michigan the people voted BY REFERENDUM to have no cause absentee balloting. The gop is trying to reverse it.

      Can’t get the story straight. Let the people decide. We lost. Don’t let the people decide

      No they are not.

      They ARE making some changes to “make voting easier and cheating harder”, some of which seem fine to me, others are a bit of a wtf at a cursory glance. I have not studied it in depth. What I don’t see is any attempt to reverse the referendum. That would take a State Constitutional Amendment which would require another referendum which I don’t see anywhere on the horizon.

      Could be wrong though if you want to point the error of my ways without some smarmy comment that doesn’t actually point out any necessary corrections :)

      Freep

      “ The proposals drawing the most ire would introduce new identification requirements for requesting absentee ballots, prohibit the secretary of state from making absentee ballot applications available online, ban clerks from supplying prepaid return postage for absentee ballots, bar clerks from counting absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to the election and impose new requirements for ballot drop boxes.”

      You could be wrong.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1625

      Masking voter disenfranchisement as “stopping cheaters”… lol

      I’ve got some beachfront property to sell you!

      Bit like counting every vote. Even those we haven’t cast yet because we don’t know how many we need :)

      Works both ways. And as long as that beach front property is on the Gulf coast ….

      Stoping non existent cheating is the cover given to mostly white gop voters do they don’t have to confront the racism

      It’s just like “everyone should need an ID to vote” without disclosing, for example, thst the GOP- controlled legislature specifically excluded forms of ID used most often by African Americans

      Both phrases are just tools given to mostly white GOP to help them avoid the reality of the suppression. Salve for the conscience. Plausible deniability