Nice bit of reporting from CNN. Biden isn't getting the full 'Trump' treatment, but at least they're trying to be somewhat less biased. I find it a little odd that Biden can't seem to tell the difference between millions, billions and trillions though. He might need a little refresher for his math skills... ?
Is he used to the alternate system then? In that one there is also the 'ard' version number that comes in between the 'ion'.
Million, milliard, billion, billiard, trillion, trilliard, etc
Is he used to the alternate system then? In that one there is also the 'ard' version number that comes in between the 'ion'.
Million, milliard, billion, billiard, trillion, trilliard, etc
I thought billiards was hitting little balls into holes with a long pointy stick...
Egypt imo, is blatantly in the open. Who knows what is actually being done elsewhere as it usually takes a decade for this type of information to come out as documents become unclassified.
I appreciate you clarifying on the status of the article.
But, I gotta say, making an argument from ignorance just isn't good enough. It's not true that we often only know about US involvement a decade after. As the article you linked notes, we knew about US involvement in the Balkans in 2000, in the former Soviet Union, Israel and Palestine in 1996. We obviously knew about US involvement in Haiti in 1986, again, as the LAT article says. I'm sorry but asserting that something is obviously true, just that we don't have any evidence for it right now, is not a healthy habit to maintain.
And I could go on. It didn't require a decade to know the US was involved in its invasion of Panama in 1989. Or the invasion of Grenada in 1983. Our support for the counterrevolutionaries in Nicaragua wasn't secret. Even in a famous case, where US initially denied involvement, in the 1973 Chile coup, by 1975 this was exposed by a Senate committee. Seems to me if you're going to lean so heavily on history to make evidence-less claims about today, I dunno, it doesn't seem fair to do it a la carte.
It's certainly not something you can enter into evidence in a case handwaving away autocratic regimes interfering. And, from what I've read, the Egypt 2011 case is not as "obvious" as you're claiming. To be honest, some of this is an unhelpful blending together of everything in foreign policy with secretive election interference, and it doesn't aid the discussion. The US has treaties and agreements with many nations in the world, those agreements rely on getting concessions from certain governments, such as Egypt cooperating with Israel, in this case. Such as the Egyptian government respecting human rights. This is not the same as secretly funding election propaganda. It would be akin to accusing Canada or Mexico of "interfering" with the 2020 election because they wanted some things on Trump's NAFTA reform.
Two important issues about how our government is constructed and works are front and center right now, the filibuster and DC statehood:
1.) In the case of the filibuster, even the center/right Democratic position is now that it should go back to it's original form. It was never supposed to be a process by which a single Senator can raise his hand and torpedo basically any legislation. It was meant to be an actual takeover of the Senate floor by a Senator (or group of Senators trading off if they can form an alliance) by refusing to yield. It was never meant to kill legislation. It was meant to give a high-profile platform to any Senator who was SO opposed to it that he would engage in a marathon, talk til you collapse floor speech to raise awareness about WHY they were opposing it, and the lengths they would personally go to to stop it. This is the climax of perhaps the most famous American political movie ever, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". In it's current iteration, one person from any state can turn the Senate from a 50% +1 chamber into one that needs closer to 2/3rds support to pass anything.
2.) Seeing alot of bothsiderism today about DC statehood, and people saying that if the shoe was on the other foot, Democrats wouldn't support it, because they only care because it would shift the balance of power. The heart of this media "both sides" debate is the equal weight given to Republican cynicism and actual Democratic ideals. The left supports DC statehood because even though they have a population larger than 3 states, they have ZERO votes in the House or the Senate. And it isn't a coincidence that the only area in the continental United States where the residents have literally NO say in anything that happens nationally is one that is majority African-American. In fact, in some cases, Congress can overturn local District laws. That's right, voters in OTHER states have more direct control over what happens in DC than anyone who actually lives in the city. THAT is why DC statehood should exist. Even though it's really nothing more than a simple, catchy slogan, the phrase "no taxation without representation" is beat into your head as a student when learning about the Revolutionary War. The 700,000 residents of DC have no representation in the Legislative branch. They have a member in the House, but she can't vote. Everyone who lives there is a second-class citizen.
Let's see, how about a foreign comparison for D.C statehood ... Mexico.
After Mexico gained independence, they enacted a federal republic based on that in the USA. That included a federal district - explicitly required to not be a state - to house the capital. Since they already had an obvious capital, they put that in Mexico City.
Mexico City had substantial autonomy for most of its history, with a mayor leading the city government. That still wasn't a match for state authority, but that has changed recently; it has its own legislature since 1997. As of 2017, it's basically a state in all but name.
Representation in the federal legislature? They've had that for more than a hundred years, equivalent to a state.
So no, letting DC be a state or equivalent won't break anything. The Republicans just don't like it because the city is full of black people who vote for Democrats (in the current political alignment).
Let's see, how about a foreign comparison for D.C statehood ... Mexico.
After Mexico gained independence, they enacted a federal republic based on that in the USA. That included a federal district - explicitly required to not be a state - to house the capital. Since they already had an obvious capital, they put that in Mexico City.
Mexico City had substantial autonomy for most of its history, with a mayor leading the city government. That still wasn't a match for state authority, but that has changed recently; it has its own legislature since 1997. As of 2017, it's basically a state in all but name.
Representation in the federal legislature? They've had that for more than a hundred years, equivalent to a state.
So no, letting DC be a state or equivalent won't break anything. The Republicans just don't like it because the city is full of black people who vote for Democrats (in the current political alignment).
They are literally making arguments in the hearing today that include things like "alot of politicians are in closer proximity to them physically than anywhere else, so they don't actually need to vote for their own" and "Washington DC relies too much on travel and tourism and has no agricultural or manufacturing base, so they shouldn't count". The last made in spite of the fact that it has a higher GDP than 16 states. Playing into the long-standing trope that the only "real Americans" who deserve full rights are people who have dirt or grease on their hands at the end of the day.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
It really isn't as simple as that. If D.C. is made part of a state, they're going to have to start paying taxes to that state and that state will need to supply them with benefits, that also includes corporate taxes. Redistricting for congress seats would also have to be done and, I doubt either of those two states will be afforded more seats in compensation.
A compromise would be something like a 'territory seats.' All U.S. citizens at them moment who do not have representation in either congress or the senate (Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa & Washington DC) share 2 senate seats and get congressional representation based on their total population, (4.2 million roughly so 5 seats, or 7 so each territory has one but Samoa and NMI have less that 50,000 so they might need it). P.R and DC share one senate seat, having it flip between the two every 4 years, and the other 4 territories rotate the other seat.
Is this perfect? No, but it prevents the P.R. needs to be a state too argument if D.C. gets it and the territories get some form of voting representation.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
Maybe not Houston, but I remember reading something about a group of people that wanted Texas to be a nation of it's own. This was several years back, but it kind of stuck in my mind. North America would then consist of Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Texas.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
3/5 of a vote would actually be 2/5 more of a vote than they have now. I mean, let's think for a minute just how absurd this is. They are US citizens, who have to follow the same laws and pay the same taxes everyone else does, and they can't vote for a House Representative or Senator because of the zip code of their address.
Just for the record, I'm all for Puerto Rico statehood. The GOP can just deal with it. I do have a problem with DC becoming a state though. It was carved out of Virginia and Maryland and to those states it can go back as far as I'm concerned...
Sorry for my imput and I could be wrong, but from what I understand only one state can legally leave the union, and Texas is not it.
Well, I have my doubts that we'd fight a civil war this time if Texas really wanted to leave. However, I don't think there's any serious movement for succession so my educated guess will likely remain just that...
Your actual, tangible worth as a voter in this country is determined by lines on a map. This ties into what I said about the filibuster before. The 500,000 voters of Wyoming (or Vermont for that matter) can elect two Senators who can basically stall any domestic legislation, and the citizens of the District of Columbia don't even have a single fucking vote in the House, which would be insignificant in 99% of situations anyway.
Sorry for my imput and I could be wrong, but from what I understand only one state can legally leave the union, and Texas is not it.
Well, I have my doubts that we'd fight a civil war this time if Texas really wanted to leave. However, I don't think there's any serious movement for succession so my educated guess will likely remain just that...
This is always ridiculous talk. Unless you're in the deep south and some Western plains states, the most the population skews red or blue is 60/40.
I don't think there is either, this was a fringe group if memory serves. I think it was the Republic of Texas group, but I can't remember the details well enough.
Your actual, tangible worth as a voter in this country is determined by lines on a map. This ties into what I said about the filibuster before. The 500,000 voters of Wyoming (or Vermont for that matter) can elect two Senators who can basically stall any domestic legislation, and the citizens of the District of Columbia don't even have a single fucking vote in the House, which would be insignificant in 99% of situations anyway.
I agree with you about the filibuster. Let them get out on the floor and talk 'till they drop. The gridlock in Congress can mostly be attributed to arbitrary bullshit like this. If Congress really wants to become relevant, they need to go back to filibusters requiring pain.
Edit: As I've said before in this thread, it's high time Congress gets back to being at least an equal partner instead of a bunch of fat cats collecting paychecks and cush pensions while whining about executive orders and SCOTUS rulings like they're totally powerless. Worthless bureaucrats as far as I'm concerned...
Your actual, tangible worth as a voter in this country is determined by lines on a map. This ties into what I said about the filibuster before. The 500,000 voters of Wyoming (or Vermont for that matter) can elect two Senators who can basically stall any domestic legislation, and the citizens of the District of Columbia don't even have a single fucking vote in the House, which would be insignificant in 99% of situations anyway.
I agree with you about the filibuster. Let them get out on the floor and talk 'till they drop. The gridlock in Congress can mostly be attributed to arbitrary bullshit like this. If Congress really wants to become relevant, they need to go back to filibusters requiring pain.
Edit: As I've said before in this thread, it's high time Congress gets back to being at least an equal partner instead of a bunch of fat cats collecting paychecks and cush pensions while whining about executive orders and SCOTUS rulings like they're totally powerless. Worthless bureaucrats as far as I'm concerned...
The Senate is basically the entire issue. The House Majority for either party can pass things. The six-year terms, arcane rules that make THACO look like 1st grade math, and utterly absurd representation allocation are what is doing this. Mitch McConnell is threatening Dems that he will go scorched earth if they get rid of it. Lmao. As opposed to the last 4 years?? Fine, have at it. Pass a national abortion ban in 2022 if you get it back and see what happens.
Just for the record, I'm all for Puerto Rico statehood. The GOP can just deal with it. I do have a problem with DC becoming a state though. It was carved out of Virginia and Maryland and to those states it can go back as far as I'm concerned...
There wouldn't even be that much to deal with if they could resist their natural inclination to cater to xenophobes. The island is full of socially conservative Catholics. 85%. It isn't even a foregone conclusion Democrats would win it. If they were smart, they'd be stealth pushing it and working on a ground game in advance.
Just for the record, I'm all for Puerto Rico statehood. The GOP can just deal with it. I do have a problem with DC becoming a state though. It was carved out of Virginia and Maryland and to those states it can go back as far as I'm concerned...
There wouldn't even be that much to deal with if they could resist their natural inclination to cater to xenophobes. The island is full of socially conservative Catholics. 85%. It isn't even a foregone conclusion Democrats would win it. If they were smart, they'd be stealth pushing it and working on a ground game in advance.
Agreed. The Latino vote is in no way in the bag for Democrats. In fact, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to get them at all. They're not a minority that sees things their way. I actually hope that the GOP realizes this and uses it to advantage. They'd have to move slightly left but the opportunity is there for the taking. If they do that, I might be able to vote for them again...
Just to clarify, not to defend the Democratic Party from my previous post. The GOP doesn't understand Latino views either (yet). Puerto Rico is an opportunity for them, not a detriment. Especially if DC becomes a state. I truly believe that...
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Edit: Clarification; there's even less rural representation than Rhode Island, our smallest state. That was the basis for my 'City-State' reference
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Giving full enfranchisement to ~700,000 Americans seems like a good thing to me.
Frankly, only viewing these things with the lens of which of the currently existing parties benefits is such a narrow-minded way to look at the issues. The parties and their current coalition of voters will vanish one day and be replaced by a new breakdown of partisanship.
But people being able to vote for legislative branch representation who previously could not will last. And it's an unalloyed good thing.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Giving full enfranchisement to 700,00 Americans seems like a good thing to me.
Frankly, only viewing these things with the lens of which of the currently existing parties benefits, is such a narrow-minded way to look at the issues. The parties and their current coalition of voters will vanish one day and be in a new breakdown of partisanship.
But people being able to vote for legislative branch representation who previously could not will last. And it's an unalloyed good thing.
Put DC into the states it was carved out of. Increase the representation as required. Case closed. DC is not a state. Sorry. I don't agree with you.
Comments
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/fact-check-biden-abc-stephanopoulos/index.html
Million, milliard, billion, billiard, trillion, trilliard, etc
I thought billiards was hitting little balls into holes with a long pointy stick...
I appreciate you clarifying on the status of the article.
But, I gotta say, making an argument from ignorance just isn't good enough. It's not true that we often only know about US involvement a decade after. As the article you linked notes, we knew about US involvement in the Balkans in 2000, in the former Soviet Union, Israel and Palestine in 1996. We obviously knew about US involvement in Haiti in 1986, again, as the LAT article says. I'm sorry but asserting that something is obviously true, just that we don't have any evidence for it right now, is not a healthy habit to maintain.
And I could go on. It didn't require a decade to know the US was involved in its invasion of Panama in 1989. Or the invasion of Grenada in 1983. Our support for the counterrevolutionaries in Nicaragua wasn't secret. Even in a famous case, where US initially denied involvement, in the 1973 Chile coup, by 1975 this was exposed by a Senate committee. Seems to me if you're going to lean so heavily on history to make evidence-less claims about today, I dunno, it doesn't seem fair to do it a la carte.
It's certainly not something you can enter into evidence in a case handwaving away autocratic regimes interfering. And, from what I've read, the Egypt 2011 case is not as "obvious" as you're claiming. To be honest, some of this is an unhelpful blending together of everything in foreign policy with secretive election interference, and it doesn't aid the discussion. The US has treaties and agreements with many nations in the world, those agreements rely on getting concessions from certain governments, such as Egypt cooperating with Israel, in this case. Such as the Egyptian government respecting human rights. This is not the same as secretly funding election propaganda. It would be akin to accusing Canada or Mexico of "interfering" with the 2020 election because they wanted some things on Trump's NAFTA reform.
1.) In the case of the filibuster, even the center/right Democratic position is now that it should go back to it's original form. It was never supposed to be a process by which a single Senator can raise his hand and torpedo basically any legislation. It was meant to be an actual takeover of the Senate floor by a Senator (or group of Senators trading off if they can form an alliance) by refusing to yield. It was never meant to kill legislation. It was meant to give a high-profile platform to any Senator who was SO opposed to it that he would engage in a marathon, talk til you collapse floor speech to raise awareness about WHY they were opposing it, and the lengths they would personally go to to stop it. This is the climax of perhaps the most famous American political movie ever, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". In it's current iteration, one person from any state can turn the Senate from a 50% +1 chamber into one that needs closer to 2/3rds support to pass anything.
2.) Seeing alot of bothsiderism today about DC statehood, and people saying that if the shoe was on the other foot, Democrats wouldn't support it, because they only care because it would shift the balance of power. The heart of this media "both sides" debate is the equal weight given to Republican cynicism and actual Democratic ideals. The left supports DC statehood because even though they have a population larger than 3 states, they have ZERO votes in the House or the Senate. And it isn't a coincidence that the only area in the continental United States where the residents have literally NO say in anything that happens nationally is one that is majority African-American. In fact, in some cases, Congress can overturn local District laws. That's right, voters in OTHER states have more direct control over what happens in DC than anyone who actually lives in the city. THAT is why DC statehood should exist. Even though it's really nothing more than a simple, catchy slogan, the phrase "no taxation without representation" is beat into your head as a student when learning about the Revolutionary War. The 700,000 residents of DC have no representation in the Legislative branch. They have a member in the House, but she can't vote. Everyone who lives there is a second-class citizen.
After Mexico gained independence, they enacted a federal republic based on that in the USA. That included a federal district - explicitly required to not be a state - to house the capital. Since they already had an obvious capital, they put that in Mexico City.
Mexico City had substantial autonomy for most of its history, with a mayor leading the city government. That still wasn't a match for state authority, but that has changed recently; it has its own legislature since 1997. As of 2017, it's basically a state in all but name.
Representation in the federal legislature? They've had that for more than a hundred years, equivalent to a state.
So no, letting DC be a state or equivalent won't break anything. The Republicans just don't like it because the city is full of black people who vote for Democrats (in the current political alignment).
They are literally making arguments in the hearing today that include things like "alot of politicians are in closer proximity to them physically than anywhere else, so they don't actually need to vote for their own" and "Washington DC relies too much on travel and tourism and has no agricultural or manufacturing base, so they shouldn't count". The last made in spite of the fact that it has a higher GDP than 16 states. Playing into the long-standing trope that the only "real Americans" who deserve full rights are people who have dirt or grease on their hands at the end of the day.
It really isn't as simple as that. If D.C. is made part of a state, they're going to have to start paying taxes to that state and that state will need to supply them with benefits, that also includes corporate taxes. Redistricting for congress seats would also have to be done and, I doubt either of those two states will be afforded more seats in compensation.
A compromise would be something like a 'territory seats.' All U.S. citizens at them moment who do not have representation in either congress or the senate (Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa & Washington DC) share 2 senate seats and get congressional representation based on their total population, (4.2 million roughly so 5 seats, or 7 so each territory has one but Samoa and NMI have less that 50,000 so they might need it). P.R and DC share one senate seat, having it flip between the two every 4 years, and the other 4 territories rotate the other seat.
Is this perfect? No, but it prevents the P.R. needs to be a state too argument if D.C. gets it and the territories get some form of voting representation.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
Maybe not Houston, but I remember reading something about a group of people that wanted Texas to be a nation of it's own. This was several years back, but it kind of stuck in my mind. North America would then consist of Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Texas.
3/5 of a vote would actually be 2/5 more of a vote than they have now. I mean, let's think for a minute just how absurd this is. They are US citizens, who have to follow the same laws and pay the same taxes everyone else does, and they can't vote for a House Representative or Senator because of the zip code of their address.
Well, I have my doubts that we'd fight a civil war this time if Texas really wanted to leave. However, I don't think there's any serious movement for succession so my educated guess will likely remain just that...
This is always ridiculous talk. Unless you're in the deep south and some Western plains states, the most the population skews red or blue is 60/40.
I agree with you about the filibuster. Let them get out on the floor and talk 'till they drop. The gridlock in Congress can mostly be attributed to arbitrary bullshit like this. If Congress really wants to become relevant, they need to go back to filibusters requiring pain.
Edit: As I've said before in this thread, it's high time Congress gets back to being at least an equal partner instead of a bunch of fat cats collecting paychecks and cush pensions while whining about executive orders and SCOTUS rulings like they're totally powerless. Worthless bureaucrats as far as I'm concerned...
The Senate is basically the entire issue. The House Majority for either party can pass things. The six-year terms, arcane rules that make THACO look like 1st grade math, and utterly absurd representation allocation are what is doing this. Mitch McConnell is threatening Dems that he will go scorched earth if they get rid of it. Lmao. As opposed to the last 4 years?? Fine, have at it. Pass a national abortion ban in 2022 if you get it back and see what happens.
There wouldn't even be that much to deal with if they could resist their natural inclination to cater to xenophobes. The island is full of socially conservative Catholics. 85%. It isn't even a foregone conclusion Democrats would win it. If they were smart, they'd be stealth pushing it and working on a ground game in advance.
Agreed. The Latino vote is in no way in the bag for Democrats. In fact, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to get them at all. They're not a minority that sees things their way. I actually hope that the GOP realizes this and uses it to advantage. They'd have to move slightly left but the opportunity is there for the taking. If they do that, I might be able to vote for them again...
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Edit: Clarification; there's even less rural representation than Rhode Island, our smallest state. That was the basis for my 'City-State' reference
Giving full enfranchisement to ~700,000 Americans seems like a good thing to me.
Frankly, only viewing these things with the lens of which of the currently existing parties benefits is such a narrow-minded way to look at the issues. The parties and their current coalition of voters will vanish one day and be replaced by a new breakdown of partisanship.
But people being able to vote for legislative branch representation who previously could not will last. And it's an unalloyed good thing.
Put DC into the states it was carved out of. Increase the representation as required. Case closed. DC is not a state. Sorry. I don't agree with you.