Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's your interpretation. It appears some believe exercising power in an unusual manner, but within the bounds of the Constitution, when done by the right (e.g. ignoring Justice Garland, installing Justice Coney Barrett), is just good hardball government.
When done by the left, it's beyond the pale.
Wasn't it Bannon who said "Our side, we go for the head wound. Your side, you have pillow fights."
I think the Democrats are starting to learn about head shots and ignoring the disingenuous comments about fairness and precedent.
Yeah sorry, not buying the equivalency argument. One is a common exercise of power pursuant to having won elections, while the other is a structural shift in the balance of power designed to deliberately prevent one party from winning elections and having the opportunity to exercise those powers.
Declining to seat a Supreme Court nominee by the opposition president is not unusual; it has happened many, many times, and like any other legislative prerogative, is an exercise each party has an opportunity to exercise by winning elections. You and I both know damn well the Democrats would have done the exact same thing if the party affiliations were reversed --- and precedent would have been on their side too.
By contrast, the present statehood expansion movement is designed to deliberately impair one party's ability to win elections so only the other party gets to exercise these and other Congressional powers. THAT'S the kind of structural power shift that leads to civil war, which is precisely why the process of granting statehood has historically been carried out to minimize its impact on the balance of power.
The short version is D.C. becomes a State, with the right to taxation by representation, 1 House member, and 2 Senate members.
The prophet in me feels the GOP and many right wingers on CD will lose their collective bowels saying why it should not happen.
Shallow thinker.
You see it as a current event. A political game, which you must win.
Do you even know why it's not a state?
I'll bet you don't.
The reasons for that are every bit as valid today as when it was decided.
This is a terrible idea.
If the people dumb enough to live in DC want representation, and they're not willing to move a few miles, to MD or VA, then DC should be reabsorbed by MD.
DC statehood is a pure partisan power grab. That's it. Nothing else.
No, they do not. Why should people in Puerto Rico tell me what to do? Right, it's completely unjustifiable. If they don't like being part of this empire, I'm all for letting them secede.
As for DC, DC already has more representation than any state in the Union other than Virginia.
They don't want to secede. They're american citizens.
Second, it's wrong. The people in DC already have 100 times the political power per capita of people elsewhere.
Third, it's a violation of historical norms to use statehood to kick the other party while its down. It's the kind of thing that leads to civil war.
Trump should buy an island, and then when Republicans take control in Washington, they can make that island a state, and the state of Trump will vote to send two US Senators to Washington.
Yeah sorry, not buying the equivalency argument. One is a common exercise of power pursuant to having won elections, while the other is a structural shift in the balance of power designed to deliberately prevent one party from winning elections and having the opportunity to exercise those powers.
Declining to seat a Supreme Court nominee by the opposition president is not unusual; it has happened many, many times, and like any other legislative prerogative, is an exercise each party has an opportunity to exercise by winning elections. You and I both know damn well the Democrats would have done the exact same thing if the party affiliations were reversed --- and precedent would have been on their side too.
By contrast, the present statehood expansion movement is designed to deliberately impair one party's ability to win elections so only the other party gets to exercise these and other Congressional powers. THAT'S the kind of structural power shift that leads to civil war, which is precisely why the process of granting statehood has historically been carried out to minimize its impact on the balance of power.
Civil war? Dramatic much?
The statehood initiative is designed to provide representation to people who deserve it. Sorry you feel differently, but it's Constitutional (how many times did we hear that recently?), it's right, and you'll just have to get over your hurt feelings that right doesn't have a viable territory full of right wing-leaning people ready to transition into statehood. You know damn well that if you had, we'd be at 51 states already.
You see it as a current event. A political game, which you must win.
Do you even know why it's not a state?
I'll bet you don't.
The reasons for that are every bit as valid today as when it was decided.
This is a terrible idea.
If the people dumb enough to live in DC want representation, and they're not willing to move a few miles, to MD or VA, then DC should be reabsorbed by MD.
DC statehood is a pure partisan power grab. That's it. Nothing else.
Not really, no. These types of structural power grabs to stifle power-sharing are precisely what cause rebellions and civil wars. I don't think you grasp how precariously close we are to civil war already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant
The statehood initiative is designed to provide representation to people who deserve it. Sorry you feel differently, but it's Constitutional (how many times did we hear that recently?), it's right, and you'll just have to get over your hurt feelings that right doesn't have a viable territory full of right wing-leaning people ready to transition into statehood. You know damn well that if you had, we'd be at 51 states already.
Again -- if the people of DC want representation, DC could be reincorporated back into Maryland. Or, its residents could just move there or to Virginia. But "representation" isn't the intended goal, it's just the threadbare cloak statehood proponents cynically use to pretend like we don't all see it for the power grab it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
