Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Hairy Lime]

The 700,000 DC residents can easily be given more voting power by amending most of the DC land to Maryland. Maryland will increase in electoral votes and get  another House seat and DC voters will be able to vote for Maryland Senators.  Adding DC as it now stands as a State needs a Constitutional Amendment

PR meets all the criteria of a state.  It should definitely be our 51st. 

DC I'd have to think about, since it is a city and we haven't gone the route of having city/states.  States, in their present form, combine land and towns and cities into a larger whole that calls for governance beyond a municipal governance, natural resource management, intercity agreements, land management, highway maintenance, etc.  So I can see a valid argument for shaving off the Mall and federal offices into a national square mile or two, and then having the residential areas join Maryland.

The only thing arguably standing in its way legally is its status as the seat of the Federal Government which, being decreed by Congress can be revised by Congress in the manner you suggested.

Which, of course, is not the goal of the democrats.

True, the goal of Democrats is to provide representation for nearly 4 million Americans who are currently unrepresented in Congress. What I posted was the method for doing so, at least for 700000 of them.

LOL.

What is really funny is having baldly asserted the idea statehood for DC needed a Constitutional Amendment you have ignored my question about the Constitutional provision you believe prevents statehood.  Ut that is funny only in a ruefully shrug and "he's doing it again " sort of way.

[Hamilton Samuels]

But what about Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marianas?

Want to add 10 more Senators in Congress, and at least 10 more in the House?
...
...
Granting Senators to DC is too much, IMO.

Puerto Rico should be given statehood. This is pretty clear, especially since both major party's platforms have called for it (though the GOP currently only calls for a referendum at this point).

USVI, Guam, and the Marianas have not indicated a desire for statehood. American Samoa's residents are not equivalent - they are not American citizens and their government has indicated that they have no desire to change status.

But even if they were all admitted to the Union, it would not mean more members of the House, necessarily, let alone 10 of them. It would result in reapportionment of the 435 we already have.

DC is larger in population than Wyoming and Vermont. It would likely get one Representative, but not disrupt the whole very much.

Puerto Rico's population is larger than 20 states! They'd likely end up with 4 Representatives and 6 EVs.

That you don't want to give DC voters the right to form a state is hardly shocking.

How do you feel about the US VI?! Or Puerto Rico?

They can join a state. As I said.

No need to give outsized power to it, as creating a state would.

"They can join a state"  would dilute their power if they merged with a current state - as noted, Puerto Rico is larger than 20 current states. If they joined Florida, which is by far the closest to them, while they might get 4 US reps, I imagine they would find their needs shunted aside.

You don't have a reason that PR should not be a state, Ham, other than that it would be a big deal.

What states do you think the USVI or Guam should join?

And why?

I think we have had a miscommunication. The bill was about DC. They can join a state, which it was I contended in my earlier posts. The others are not asking for statehood, yet. Each should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as to exactly how or why they'd become an integral part of the USA with proper representation in Congress.

[Hamilton Samuels]

But what about Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marianas?

Want to add 10 more Senators in Congress, and at least 10 more in the House?
...
...
Granting Senators to DC is too much, IMO.

Puerto Rico should be given statehood. This is pretty clear, especially since both major party's platforms have called for it (though the GOP currently only calls for a referendum at this point).

USVI, Guam, and the Marianas have not indicated a desire for statehood. American Samoa's residents are not equivalent - they are not American citizens and their government has indicated that they have no desire to change status.

But even if they were all admitted to the Union, it would not mean more members of the House, necessarily, let alone 10 of them. It would result in reapportionment of the 435 we already have.

DC is larger in population than Wyoming and Vermont. It would likely get one Representative, but not disrupt the whole very much.

Puerto Rico's population is larger than 20 states! They'd likely end up with 4 Representatives and 6 EVs.

That you don't want to give DC voters the right to form a state is hardly shocking.

How do you feel about the US VI?! Or Puerto Rico?

They can join a state. As I said.

No need to give outsized power to it, as creating a state would.

Outsized compared to, say, Wyoming or Vermont? As long as we have an electoral college, Senate and a House based on 700000 some states will have outsized power.

As was part of the original compromise. Nothing wrong with that, if they are states with the geography to accommodate more people. But, DC is not that way.   

[Hamilton Samuels]

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), the only two Black Democrats in the Senate, were among several high-ranking officials pointing to Bryant’s death as an example of the need to overhaul policing....     

Though I'm a Booker fan,  I have to ask here:  if police shouldn't use the lethal force of a gun to stop a knife attack (when the attacker is literally right on top of someone),  why are police carrying guns?   Even if Ms Bryant was acting out of some impulse to defend a family member, there's no getting around the fact that she grabbed a lethal weapon that can transect an artery in a split second and went after someone.   If we want protection of citizens from this kind of assault, then what's the alternative that works in this situation?  Rubber bullets, sonic weapons,  some hypothetical high-speed deescalation method?   What works when a single cop arrives in the middle of an adrenalized street fight?  Help me understand,  Mr Booker, why you think this Bryant case is an "example. "

Booker is playing to the crowd. That is all.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), the only two Black Democrats in the Senate, were among several high-ranking officials pointing to Bryant’s death as an example of the need to overhaul policing....     

Though I'm a Booker fan,  I have to ask here:  if police shouldn't use the lethal force of a gun to stop a knife attack (when the attacker is literally right on top of someone),  why are police carrying guns?   Even if Ms Bryant was acting out of some impulse to defend a family member, there's no getting around the fact that she grabbed a lethal weapon that can transect an artery in a split second and went after someone.   If we want protection of citizens from this kind of assault, then what's the alternative that works in this situation?  Rubber bullets, sonic weapons,  some hypothetical high-speed deescalation method?   What works when a single cop arrives in the middle of an adrenalized street fight?  Help me understand,  Mr Booker, why you think this Bryant case is an "example. "

Three cops

This underscores why an investigation is needed.  This press account makes it sounds like Reardon arrived at the driveway altercation alone and others officer were at some distance from it....

(From NPR)

Reardon was working alone when he pulled his police car up at the address given in the 911 calls. As he crossed the sidewalk, a group of people could be heard yelling, with a small crowd gathered in a driveway.

"What's going on?" he repeatedly asks in the video, as Bryant struggles first with one woman and then another. Reardon shouts, "Get down" and points his gun at Bryant, who is seen swinging her arm toward the other woman.

The officer then fired four shots. From the time he closed his police car door to when he fired the first shot, only around 10 seconds elapsed.

You see the problem.  I can't tell what role, if any, other officers were playing in those ten seconds.

But the video was edited. So, you don't have the entire picture. We do know that three girls were fighting, and one had a weapon that is lethal, and she attempted to use it with clear intent to injure or do worse to another. She was stopped from doing so.
Forever.

[LarryBnDC]

No Taxation Without Representation


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/22/5-dumbest-gop-arguments-against-dc-statehood/

[Hamilton Samuels]

I'll go against my usual political grain here and say that I think Reardon made the right choice.  Imagine that's your daughter who is pushed against a car and has an assailant coming at her with a knife.  If you cry genuine tears over what happened, I'm okay with that, but I don't want to see politicians crying crocodile tears over a girl who wyas, let's be honest here, engaged in extreme and life-threatening violence.  This incident looks in no way to be equivalent to George Floyd or Daunte Wright or others who died wrongly.

Crocodile tears for child who is dead?

It’s not the equivalence it’s the ubiquity.

Our communities are over policed and under protected.

This was an instance of the proverbial split second decision so I can see giving Reardon the benefit of the doubt pending investigation.

It's a dangerous and irresponsible game to immediately start playing politics with a dead kid who made a clearly bad choice. Worse is to begin elevating the discussion beyond where it should be at this juncture.

But that is also the case for the shooting in Ohio. That dude is likely alive, if he cooperates with the arrest and lets a lawyer get him out of jail.

Many of the country's communities are under-protected, but that is at least partly because those same communities often will not cooperate with the police in helping to protect the people from others within their community.

Camden, NJ reorganized its police force completely, and crime dropped significantly. But the community has many members who are upset with the amount of electronic surveillance there is, now.

I find that a bit ironic given that the cameras on cellphones are creating accountability for the police.

I find it would well serve all communities, if it is legal to do so, to require the police and firefighters to live within that community. That's a really hard thing to require, but if you live in a place you should want to protect it. If you are someone's neighbor, they are less likely to see you as an outsider. And that would create circumstances where an officer isn't pulling up to a house not knowing anything about who lives there.

 

[Hamilton Samuels]

Speaking of taxation: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/biden-to-propose-capital-gains-tax-hike-to-fund-education-and-child-care.html

[Hamilton Samuels]

And in other news, Elon Musk is going to probably get his ass sued: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/04/consumer-reports-shows-tesla-autopilot-works-with-no-one-in-the-drivers-seat/

[Hamilton Samuels]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mlb-asking-fans-about-political-affiliation/

MLB is asking its fans about their politics.

“The research has shown that a person’s self-identified political affiliation often impacts their views about the pandemic, and therefore respondents’ views regarding returning to the ballpark,” MLB said in a prepared statement to National Review. “Since we are in the midst of the pandemic, this is valuable information for our clubs to understand the views of their fans about attending games.”

According to MLB, this is the third year the league has conducted extensive surveys of fans about their experiences at the ballpark, including their experiences buying tickets, entering the park, buying food and merchandise, and customer service. But during last year’s National League Championship Series and World Series – the only two MLB events fans were allowed to attend – the league added a new set of questions about fan comfort about returning to the ballpark in the pandemic. According to a survey distributed after a recent Washington Nationals game, they include questions about how well COVID-19 safety protocols were implemented, and what percentage of fans complied with mask requirements. They also include the political affiliation question.


Fans are given options besides Republican and Democrat. They can choose Third Party, Independent, “I’d prefer not to say,” or skip the question – or the survey – altogether.

“Taking the survey and answering that question are completely voluntary,” MLB said.

Polling suggests that political partisanship influences COVID risk perception to a significant degree.

 Ya fucking think so?

[REDSTATEWARD]

The 700,000 DC residents can easily be given more voting power by amending most of the DC land to Maryland. Maryland will increase in electoral votes and get  another House seat and DC voters will be able to vote for Maryland Senators.  Adding DC as it now stands as a State needs a Constitutional Amendment

PR meets all the criteria of a state.  It should definitely be our 51st. 

DC I'd have to think about, since it is a city and we haven't gone the route of having city/states.  States, in their present form, combine land and towns and cities into a larger whole that calls for governance beyond a municipal governance, natural resource management, intercity agreements, land management, highway maintenance, etc.  So I can see a valid argument for shaving off the Mall and federal offices into a national square mile or two, and then having the residential areas join Maryland.

The only thing arguably standing in its way legally is its status as the seat of the Federal Government which, being decreed by Congress can be revised by Congress in the manner you suggested.

Which, of course, is not the goal of the democrats.

True, the goal of Democrats is to provide representation for nearly 4 million Americans who are currently unrepresented in Congress. What I posted was the method for doing so, at least for 700000 of them.

LOL.

What is really funny is having baldly asserted the idea statehood for DC needed a Constitutional Amendment you have ignored my question about the Constitutional provision you believe prevents statehood.  Ut that is funny only in a ruefully shrug and "he's doing it again " sort of way.

There are a number of ways Congress could propose satisfying the complaints of DC residents, , taxation without representation, etc.  It could waive individual federal income taxes, it could reduce the size of the district with most of the land reverting back to Maryland, as previously mentioned.
But to simply call it a state by Congressional vote runs into Constitutional hurdles.
Article 1 Section 8 giving Congress permanent power over the District. If  a district becomes a state, statehood is permanent. It can never be revoked.
Article IV, Section 3: Maryland's Permission
Maryland donated the land for D.C. under the terms of the Constitution, not so it could be used for another state.
The 23rd AmendmentSimply put the effect of the making D.C. a state would greatly reduce the size of its land needed to serve as a district.  But those buildings would still get three electoral votes.

It is not surprising that every administration from Kennedy onward has concluded that DC cannot be admitted as a State without a Constitutional Amendment.

[LarryBnDC]

The 700,000 DC residents can easily be given more voting power by amending most of the DC land to Maryland. Maryland will increase in electoral votes and get  another House seat and DC voters will be able to vote for Maryland Senators.  Adding DC as it now stands as a State needs a Constitutional Amendment

PR meets all the criteria of a state.  It should definitely be our 51st. 

DC I'd have to think about, since it is a city and we haven't gone the route of having city/states.  States, in their present form, combine land and towns and cities into a larger whole that calls for governance beyond a municipal governance, natural resource management, intercity agreements, land management, highway maintenance, etc.  So I can see a valid argument for shaving off the Mall and federal offices into a national square mile or two, and then having the residential areas join Maryland.

The only thing arguably standing in its way legally is its status as the seat of the Federal Government which, being decreed by Congress can be revised by Congress in the manner you suggested.

Which, of course, is not the goal of the democrats.

True, the goal of Democrats is to provide representation for nearly 4 million Americans who are currently unrepresented in Congress. What I posted was the method for doing so, at least for 700000 of them.

LOL.

What is really funny is having baldly asserted the idea statehood for DC needed a Constitutional Amendment you have ignored my question about the Constitutional provision you believe prevents statehood.  Ut that is funny only in a ruefully shrug and "he's doing it again " sort of way.

There are a number of ways Congress could propose satisfying the complaints of DC residents, , taxation without representation, etc.  It could waive individual federal income taxes, it could reduce the size of the district with most of the land reverting back to Maryland, as previously mentioned.
But to simply call it a state by Congressional vote runs into Constitutional hurdles.
Article 1 Section 8 giving Congress permanent power over the District. If  a district becomes a state, statehood is permanent. It can never be revoked.
Article IV, Section 3: Maryland's Permission
Maryland donated the land for D.C. under the terms of the Constitution, not so it could be used for another state.
The 23rd AmendmentSimply put the effect of the making D.C. a state would greatly reduce the size of its land needed to serve as a district.  But those buildings would still get three electoral votes.

It is not surprising that every administration from Kennedy onward has concluded that DC cannot be admitted as a State without a Constitutional Amendment.

Pull!


Boom.

Your cut and paste argument is outdated.

[Hamilton Samuels]

I think Maryland would have to agree to take DC back, too.

Not sure why they would.

[facilitatorn]

Speaking of taxation: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/biden-to-propose-capital-gains-tax-hike-to-fund-education-and-child-care.html

Long overdue.

[REDSTATEWARD]

CNN Attacks Babylon Bee: 'The Internet is Only Big Enough For One Fake News Site





There ain't room in this internet for the both of us,' growled one CNN anchor on the air Monday evening. 'There simply aren't enough people out there for us to fool with our fake news stories and The Babylon Bee to fool with their satire. There isn't enough clickbait and outrage traffic to go around.'"


According to the "report," numerous CNN reporters complained their news was "much faker" than the Bee's.

-Actual Babylon Bee Story-