NationStates

Floofybit wrote:Move it to Utah, but make sure it stays red. Or else...

This is probably the worst suggestion here

Not American, but I don't see the point in changing the capital. In the event of DC statehood just make a distinction between the state and federal buildings. If it means DC misses out on money from the Congress gift shop, so be it.

Toronina wrote:Not American, but I don't see the point in changing the capital. In the event of DC statehood just make a distinction between the state and federal buildings. If it means DC misses out on money from the Congress gift shop, so be it.

The point isn't changing it. The point is merely where would be a good place to put it if we did decide to move it out of DC. You basically have a what if scenario in this discussion.

Land of The Furries wrote:

Floofybit wrote:Move it to Utah, but make sure it stays red. Or else...

Ok? Where would be the safest place in Utah though?

They could put it around Herriman. Fairly new things around there, one of the safest cities in Utah. They have been developing outside of it, so they could just transfer the developing into developing a new capital

Or just move it to Salt Lake ig

But idk, maybe not. The capital is pretty likely to get nuked someday

Move it to Middle Earth

Necroghastia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:For most people that would make no difference to how transparent the government is.

Given that Lumen's argument was "you can visit your representative or senator's office," by his own logic if the Capitol building was closed and things were discussed remotely that would actually increase transparency, since it would be far easier to visit someone in-state than all the way across the country.

No thats not what I said at all. A government that was entirely remote would not be very effective. If it was why has no government anywhere decided to close their meeting sites and do everything remotely?

The Dodo Republic wrote:Move it to Middle Earth

Nice try and kudos but I don't think I would want Sauran and Moorduor kingdom anywhere near our capital. We have enough problems as it is with corruption in the real world that we don't need the Dems trying to go after "THE ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL"

Floofybit wrote:

Land of The Furries wrote:Ok? Where would be the safest place in Utah though?

They could put it around Herriman. Fairly new things around there, one of the safest cities in Utah. They have been developing outside of it, so they could just transfer the developing into developing a new capital

Or just move it to Salt Lake ig

But idk, maybe not. The capital is pretty likely to get nuked someday

Why not move to an already-existing place, though?

-Astoria- wrote:

Floofybit wrote:They could put it around Herriman. Fairly new things around there, one of the safest cities in Utah. They have been developing outside of it, so they could just transfer the developing into developing a new capital

Or just move it to Salt Lake ig

But idk, maybe not. The capital is pretty likely to get nuked someday

Why not move to an already-existing place, though?

Less paperwork involved in an already developing area versus one that's already developed I think

Floofybit wrote:

Land of The Furries wrote:Ok? Where would be the safest place in Utah though?

They could put it around Herriman. Fairly new things around there, one of the safest cities in Utah. They have been developing outside of it, so they could just transfer the developing into developing a new capital

Or just move it to Salt Lake ig

But idk, maybe not. The capital is pretty likely to get nuked someday

Still either way I honestly don't care where it's located just as long as it can survive a nuclear attack and still keep operating.

Land of The Furries wrote:

-Astoria- wrote:Why not move to an already-existing place, though?

Less paperwork involved in an already developing area versus one that's already developed I think

Would there not be more, in fact, given that one would also have to negotiate settlement incorporation and the logistics thereof (for one)?

-Astoria- wrote:

Land of The Furries wrote:Less paperwork involved in an already developing area versus one that's already developed I think

Would there not be more, in fact, given that one would also have to negotiate settlement incorporation and the logistics thereof (for one)?

Oh trust me stuff like that would've been already discussed before the development started do keep in mind that I have mentioned before the existence of D.U.M.B's. So wherever they have new development being built over these D.U.M.B's talks like you have mentioned are talked about and agreed upon before construction. So I guess in this case moving our capital would be less paperwork involved if settlement incorporation and logistics thereof would already exist at possible said location of building site over the D.U.M.B.

Land of The Furries wrote:

-Astoria- wrote:Would there not be more, in fact, given that one would also have to negotiate settlement incorporation and the logistics thereof (for one)?

Oh trust me stuff like that would've been already discussed before the development started do keep in mind that I have mentioned before the existence of D.U.M.B's. So wherever they have new development being built over these D.U.M.B's talks like you have mentioned are talked about and agreed upon before construction. So I guess in this case moving our capital would be less paperwork involved if settlement incorporation and logistics thereof would already exist at possible said location of building site over the D.U.M.B.

"DUMB"s?

I think it should be in the exact geographical center of the US, i.e. somewhere around South Dakota, buried hundreds of miles into the upper mantle.

The Dodo Republic wrote:Move it to Middle Earth

why not? we just need to dump water into mt st helens to make mordor. then well build a mile high skyscraper to house the government buildings, and turn J.R. Biden into a giant flaming eye.

meanwhile Donalf the Orange must grow an beard and lead Ronathorn son of Ronagorn-de-Santis and a short little guy named Kevin Baggarthy to throw the ring into the volcano before the Demwraiths can seize it from them ahead of the 2024 elections

-Astoria- wrote:

Land of The Furries wrote:Oh trust me stuff like that would've been already discussed before the development started do keep in mind that I have mentioned before the existence of D.U.M.B's. So wherever they have new development being built over these D.U.M.B's talks like you have mentioned are talked about and agreed upon before construction. So I guess in this case moving our capital would be less paperwork involved if settlement incorporation and logistics thereof would already exist at possible said location of building site over the D.U.M.B.

"DUMB"s?

Short for Deep Underground Military Bases.

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Is government transparent when it's all behind locked doors in Washington?

Its not. You can visit your Representative or Senator's office. You can sit in on committee meetings and view sessions of the House and Senate from the viewing gallery.

Yes when I have a complaint about what the government is doing I just drive down to D.C. and knock on Bernie's office door so I can complain to him in person. That is how reality works.

Eahland wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Its not. You can visit your Representative or Senator's office. You can sit in on committee meetings and view sessions of the House and Senate from the viewing gallery.

Yes when I have a complaint about what the government is doing I just drive down to D.C. and knock on Bernie's office door so I can complain to him in person. That is how reality works.

Only if you have the connections for it though.

Land of The Furries wrote:

Toronina wrote:Not American, but I don't see the point in changing the capital. In the event of DC statehood just make a distinction between the state and federal buildings. If it means DC misses out on money from the Congress gift shop, so be it.

The point isn't changing it. The point is merely where would be a good place to put it if we did decide to move it out of DC. You basically have a what if scenario in this discussion.

The question is actually if the US capital should be relocated. It is not "if the capital was relocated, where should it be?"

Bewaffnete Krafte wrote:

Land of The Furries wrote:The point isn't changing it. The point is merely where would be a good place to put it if we did decide to move it out of DC. You basically have a what if scenario in this discussion.

The question is actually if the US capital should be relocated. It is not "if the capital was relocated, where should it be?"

Still you got my point.

We're in an age where everyone can get to the capital relatively easily. D.C. is historical and important. I do not want it to change. Also, the east coast is just, like, the best part of the country.

Sagadahock wrote:We're in an age where everyone can get to the capital relatively easily. D.C. is historical and important. I do not want it to change. Also, the east coast is just, like, the best part of the country.

Idk about that... I mean the beaches are gorgeous and everything but too rocky for my taste unless you refer to Pensacola Beach then the east coast ain't too bad.

Sagadahock wrote:We're in an age where everyone can get to the capital relatively easily. D.C. is historical and important. I do not want it to change. Also, the east coast is just, like, the best part of the country.

There is also no reason to change it.

Land of The Furries wrote:

Sagadahock wrote:We're in an age where everyone can get to the capital relatively easily. D.C. is historical and important. I do not want it to change. Also, the east coast is just, like, the best part of the country.

Idk about that... I mean the beaches are gorgeous and everything but too rocky for my taste unless you refer to Pensacola Beach then the east coast ain't too bad.

Rocks are great. The east coast has the fabulous Blue Ridge Mountains and beautiful Appalachians, massive cities, small towns, big praries, dense forests, areas with deep history and culture, beautiful scenery and (as you said) beaches, etc. It's just so varied and nice, especially compared to the west coast. But we're getting off topic.

San Lumen wrote:

Sagadahock wrote:We're in an age where everyone can get to the capital relatively easily. D.C. is historical and important. I do not want it to change. Also, the east coast is just, like, the best part of the country.

There is also no reason to change it.

Yeah, that's also true.

Sagadahock wrote:

Land of The Furries wrote:Idk about that... I mean the beaches are gorgeous and everything but too rocky for my taste unless you refer to Pensacola Beach then the east coast ain't too bad.

Rocks are great. The east coast has the fabulous Blue Ridge Mountains and beautiful Appalachians, massive cities, small towns, big praries, dense forests, areas with deep history and culture, beautiful scenery and (as you said) beaches, etc. It's just so varied and nice, especially compared to the west coast. But we're getting off topic.

San Lumen wrote:
There is also no reason to change it.

Yeah, that's also true.

Agreed but still I hate the rocky beaches it hurts my feet (yes I have tender feet lol). Anywho why do you think that it shouldn't be moved? What would be your reasoning behind not moving it versus moving it?