2020 US General Election Thread VIII: Cs, Ds, and Es

[The Rich Port]

How convenient that the move that is bad for corporations and the USA's bottom line was a "sham vote".

Yeah, but if hardly anybody voted on it then it can hardly be seen as representative of the people's will.

I disagree that it was a sham vote, I heard the turn-out for the 2012 one was 63%

Being a commonwealth does absolutely nothing for Puerto Rico, voting for the Commonwealth makes zero sense anyway, it shouldn't be an option, it ONLY benefits the USA, and of course, the USA does nothing to dispel that misconception.

And bet... A plebiscite for statehood will be ignored anyway, and the PPD will cheer for it, because they're corrupt as hell

[Ngelmish]

I don't pretend to know what's going to happen in '22, but I do think the Democrats are more likely to be successful in general if they empower themselves to really do more than one significant piece of legislation, and that means padding their majority. Incorporating new states is a legal way to do that. So it's probably more of the latter. I'd be in favor of statehood for D.C., Puerto Rico and breaking California up, if I was advising the party.

And, yes, I may be mistaken. But it seems from my observation that packing the court riles all the partisans up on both sides without addressing the structural imbalance that the majority party has a very shaky grasp on maintaining power in the senate for any length of time. The long term solution then seems obvious. Build that durable majority with hardball if necessary and use it to deliver reforms that, at once reward and gratify your own supporters, but universally improve things for the whole country (this is why healthcare would be at the top of the list). I think that's a more viable long term path than resorting to immediate court packing, but, yeah, sure, I'll concede that it's all speculation.

It's all up in the air I agree. What I'm leaning is more "try statehood and ditching the filibuster first but get court reform done before the midterms "than "just do courts first" to be clear. I honestly say there's a chance the courts will try to screw them over the first two giving people enough excuse anyways. Not necessarily a likely chance mind, but who's knows where the ideological winds can take us.

Well, as I mentioned to Lumen up thread, I think court reform will be significantly easier and widely more popular if we let the court act reactionary in public first -- and I'm not absolutely certain we're at the tipping point where they'll go completely insane or not. Certainly we're close. But yeah, I do think that if the Democrats do congressional reform first as a matter of procedure -- and then implement an actually popular agenda on the five areas or so where we are in total emergency conditions -- that yes, they'll have a much better shot at maintaining a popular majority. And if the court starts striking all of that popular agenda down? That's when you swing hard for court reform. But we'll see. I'm not actually optimistic that the party is going to have the vision or the will to go there.

Very interesting news I just learned. Amy Comey Barrett has in the past opposed qualified immunity, I'm kinda shocked the GOP would be willing to go forward with that given all the cop loving rhetoric.

In fairness, it's not an absolutely sealed deal with Barrett yet. Particularly if Trump didn't like her when he interviewed her before -- he's petty enough for that to be a serious problem.

[Organized States]

Obviously Puerto Rico should become a state, but I think some of the other territories you mention are too small in terms of population. DC maybe has enough population to be a state, but it could just as easily be annexed into Maryland. Maybe the US Virgin Islands could be added to Puerto Rico, since they are close by?

Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands together as the State of the American Caribbean Islands (SACI) and American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands as the State of the American Pacific Islands (SAPI).

As someone from Guam, I will never, ever, ever consent to being grouped together with the NMI.

They made their bed with the Japanese during the Second World War and I can tell you that I am not down to be politically unified with them. Their betrayal ended that possibility.

We don't want their problems and they don't want ours.

[Shrillland]

Yeah, but if hardly anybody voted on it then it can hardly be seen as representative of the people's will.

I disagree that it was a sham vote, I heard the turn-out for the 2012 one was 63%

Being a commonwealth does absolutely nothing for Puerto Rico, voting for the Commonwealth makes zero sense anyway, it shouldn't be an option, it ONLY benefits the USA, and of course, the USA does nothing to dispel that misconception.

And bet... A plebiscite for statehood will be ignored anyway, and the PPD will cheer for it, because they're corrupt as hell

I suppose that's why Vazquez has left just one other option this time around: If the vote is rejected, instead of appointing a committee for statehood, the territory will appoint a committee for independence.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Very interesting news I just learned. Amy Comey Barrett has in the past opposed qualified immunity, I'm kinda shocked the GOP would be willing to go forward with that given all the cop loving rhetoric.

In fairness, it's not an absolutely sealed deal with Barrett yet. Particularly if Trump didn't like her when he interviewed her before -- he's petty enough for that to be a serious problem.

He had Barrett at the White House again earlier today. Given how prevalent her name has been and the fact that she's meeting with POTUS before anyone else on the list more or confirms she's gonna get it, at least in my eyes.

[The Rich Port]

I disagree that it was a sham vote, I heard the turn-out for the 2012 one was 63%

Being a commonwealth does absolutely nothing for Puerto Rico, voting for the Commonwealth makes zero sense anyway, it shouldn't be an option, it ONLY benefits the USA, and of course, the USA does nothing to dispel that misconception.

And bet... A plebiscite for statehood will be ignored anyway, and the PPD will cheer for it, because they're corrupt as hell

I suppose that's why Vazquez has left just one other option this time around: If the vote is rejected, instead of appointing a committee for statehood, the territory will appoint a committee for independence.

Independence is stupid but it's at least not the political dead-end that the Commonwealth is.

... Wouldn't becoming a state give you exactly that?

No. We would lose the ability to develop our own laws regarding native land holdings and regulate our own Customs Territory.

Why would you even want that, you gonna sell goddamn cocaine or something? I mean, more power to you then, but if you want that, commonwealth doesn't give Puerto Rico shit... And y'all don't have bargaining power to change how the US deals with you unless you have a marginal presence in the Senate which is the whole point of this being a Republic.

[Organized States]

No. We would lose the ability to develop our own laws regarding native land holdings and regulate our own Customs Territory.

Why would you even want that, you gonna sell goddamn cocaine or something? I mean, more power to you then, but if you want that, commonwealth doesn't give Puerto Rico shit... And y'all don't have bargaining power to change how the US deals with you unless you have a marginal presence in the Senate which is the whole point of this being a Republic.

To give us the ability to actually control our own immigration system for one and not have to deal with the Jones Act's blatant colonialism for another.

I definitely don't want Puerto Rico's deal. I want the Commonwealth that the Northern Marianas has. They easily have the best deal out of all of the territories. A unique customs territory and their land rights protected legally. All the while they've been pretty much left alone by the Federal Government while still being able to get all of the money from the Fed.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I know you disagree, but that's a poor political judgment call from where I'm sitting. Trump chances to win this thing and keep the senate aren't great, but if they merely dangle Barrett, that might actually move some votes back to him that were either going to sit on their hands or vote for someone else due to the pandemic. Especially since y'all still have a 5-4 advantage built in for at least 15 years.

The 5-4 split effectively doesn't exist for the actually important issues. Roberts won't touch guns or any other culture war issue, Barrett (or whoever gets the nod) getting the seat here and now is effectively the only chance at actually getting answers on these things before 2040.

And four new justices is the perfect rebuttal to that. "It would set a terrible precedent" or whatever your objection is, is precisely how Democrats felt about McConnell stealing an appointment from Obama. "Don't you dare do that, we'll slaughter you in the election" but that didn't work out for Democrats did it?

It was constitutional. It was how Republicans got that 5-4 which you don't consider enough. It worked.

Expanding the court by 4 would be constitutional. It would get Democrats to 7-6 (Roberts as an R). It would work.

Tell me again how Democrats expanding the court would be disastrous ...

[San Lumen]

The 5-4 split effectively doesn't exist for the actually important issues. Roberts won't touch guns or any other culture war issue, Barrett (or whoever gets the nod) getting the seat here and now is effectively the only chance at actually getting answers on these things before 2040.

And four new justices is the perfect rebuttal to that. "It would set a terrible precedent" or whatever your objection is, is precisely how Democrats felt about McConnell stealing an appointment from Obama. "Don't you dare do that, we'll slaughter you in the election" but that didn't work out for Democrats did it?

It was constitutional. It was how Republicans got that 5-4 which you don't consider enough. It worked.

Expanding the court by 4 would be constitutional. It would get Democrats to 7-6 (Roberts as an R). It would work.

Tell me again how Democrats expanding the court would be disastrous ...

That would be an excellent idea.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The 5-4 split effectively doesn't exist for the actually important issues. Roberts won't touch guns or any other culture war issue, Barrett (or whoever gets the nod) getting the seat here and now is effectively the only chance at actually getting answers on these things before 2040.

And four new justices is the perfect rebuttal to that. "It would set a terrible precedent" or whatever your objection is, is precisely how Democrats felt about McConnell stealing an appointment from Obama. "Don't you dare do that, we'll slaughter you in the election" but that didn't work out for Democrats did it?

It was constitutional. It was how Republicans got that 5-4 which you don't consider enough. It worked.

Expanding the court by 4 would be constitutional. It would get Democrats to 7-6 (Roberts as an R). It would work.

Tell me again how Democrats expanding the court would be disastrous ...

I already did, and pretty much every Democratic leaning person on this forum who thinks long term agreed. All adding seats would do is cause a death spiral where every new president does it every time they and their party win majority. It'd be Reid's disaster all over again.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands together as the State of the American Caribbean Islands (SACI) and American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands as the State of the American Pacific Islands (SAPI).

As someone from Guam, I will never, ever, ever consent to being grouped together with the NMI.

They made their bed with the Japanese during the Second World War and I can tell you that I am not down to be politically unified with them. Their betrayal ended that possibility.

We don't want their problems and they don't want ours.

Guam would be ridiculously over-represented (per citizen) if it became a state by itself.

Good enough reason to say No. There is no territory which has a "right" to Statehood. Guam should be offered Independence.

[Shrillland]

And four new justices is the perfect rebuttal to that. "It would set a terrible precedent" or whatever your objection is, is precisely how Democrats felt about McConnell stealing an appointment from Obama. "Don't you dare do that, we'll slaughter you in the election" but that didn't work out for Democrats did it?

It was constitutional. It was how Republicans got that 5-4 which you don't consider enough. It worked.

Expanding the court by 4 would be constitutional. It would get Democrats to 7-6 (Roberts as an R). It would work.

Tell me again how Democrats expanding the court would be disastrous ...

I already did, and pretty much every Democratic leaning person on this forum who thinks long term agreed. All adding seats would do is cause a death spiral where every new president does it every time they and their party win majority. It'd be Reid's disaster all over again.

Or it will mean SCOTUS reform when the voters and a lot of lawmakers on both sides get tired of continuous expansions. It is a gamble, but constitutional amendments require both sides to see a serious problem and agree on a solution.

[Organized States]

As someone from Guam, I will never, ever, ever consent to being grouped together with the NMI.

They made their bed with the Japanese during the Second World War and I can tell you that I am not down to be politically unified with them. Their betrayal ended that possibility.

We don't want their problems and they don't want ours.

Guam would be ridiculously over-represented (per citizen) if it became a state by itself.

Good enough reason to say No. There is no territory which has a "right" to Statehood. Guam should be offered Independence.

I mean, that's not really the reason.

We got beef with the NMI that goes back about 80 years so.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I already did, and pretty much every Democratic leaning person on this forum who thinks long term agreed. All adding seats would do is cause a death spiral where every new president does it every time they and their party win majority. It'd be Reid's disaster all over again.

Or it will mean SCOTUS reform when the voters and a lot of lawmakers on both sides get tired of continuous expansions. It is a gamble, but constitutional amendments require both sides to see a serious problem and agree on a solution.

Even still, that's a years long goal, who's to say the damage could even be undone by then?

[Shrillland]

As someone from Guam, I will never, ever, ever consent to being grouped together with the NMI.

They made their bed with the Japanese during the Second World War and I can tell you that I am not down to be politically unified with them. Their betrayal ended that possibility.

We don't want their problems and they don't want ours.

Guam would be ridiculously over-represented (per citizen) if it became a state by itself.

Good enough reason to say No. There is no territory which has a "right" to Statehood. Guam should be offered Independence.

Guam doesn't want independence. The US won't risk losing their military foothold in that part of the Pacific even if Guam did want out.

[Shrillland]

Or it will mean SCOTUS reform when the voters and a lot of lawmakers on both sides get tired of continuous expansions. It is a gamble, but constitutional amendments require both sides to see a serious problem and agree on a solution.

Even still, that's a years long goal, who's to say the damage could even be undone by then?

It is at least a 6-10 year plan, yes, but it took 50 years from Wilson's vegetable period and nearly 10 from Eisenhower's brush with invalidism to get the 25th Amendment. As for damage that occurs along the way, depending on the severity we'll just have to see it as collateral.

[Organized States]

Guam would be ridiculously over-represented (per citizen) if it became a state by itself.

Good enough reason to say No. There is no territory which has a "right" to Statehood. Guam should be offered Independence.

Guam doesn't want independence. The US won't risk losing their military foothold in that part of the Pacific even if Guam did want out.

Guam hasn't said whether it wants independence or not.

We've never had the chance to actually have a referendum on self-determination as a result of the Federal Government constantly saying no.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

And four new justices is the perfect rebuttal to that. "It would set a terrible precedent" or whatever your objection is, is precisely how Democrats felt about McConnell stealing an appointment from Obama. "Don't you dare do that, we'll slaughter you in the election" but that didn't work out for Democrats did it?

It was constitutional. It was how Republicans got that 5-4 which you don't consider enough. It worked.

Expanding the court by 4 would be constitutional. It would get Democrats to 7-6 (Roberts as an R). It would work.

Tell me again how Democrats expanding the court would be disastrous ...

I already did, and pretty much every Democratic leaning person on this forum who thinks long term agreed. All adding seats would do is cause a death spiral where every new president does it every time they and their party win majority. It'd be Reid's disaster all over again.

I'm sure you you San Lumen on your side ...

A "death spiral" if you don't consider deaths or retirements in the next 8 years. It might be only 11 seats by the time Republicans would strike back, but YOU ASSERT for good reason that Republicans would double the court anyway. When they could add 2 seats, probably regaining the majority PLUS deaths or retirements in their term.

Your argument amounts to "Democrats shouln't increase the court because Republicans will strike back with excessive force" and it amounts to "don't hurt us or we will destroy everything". I'm inclined to call your bluff.

Also note that "Reid's disaster" was to remove the filibuster on appeals court confirmations, and McConnell struck back by removing the filibuster on supreme court confirmations. He didn't do what you're claiming which was strike back with everything possible: the filibuster is still there on regular bills.

[The Black Forrest]

And four new justices is the perfect rebuttal to that. "It would set a terrible precedent" or whatever your objection is, is precisely how Democrats felt about McConnell stealing an appointment from Obama. "Don't you dare do that, we'll slaughter you in the election" but that didn't work out for Democrats did it?

It was constitutional. It was how Republicans got that 5-4 which you don't consider enough. It worked.

Expanding the court by 4 would be constitutional. It would get Democrats to 7-6 (Roberts as an R). It would work.

Tell me again how Democrats expanding the court would be disastrous ...

I already did, and pretty much every Democratic leaning person on this forum who thinks long term agreed. All adding seats would do is cause a death spiral where every new president does it every time they and their party win majority. It'd be Reid's disaster all over again.

Reid may have started it. The repubs didn’t need to jump in like it was a party.

Why should the demos take a hit and attempt to set things straight? Repubs would only see it as an opportunity.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Guam would be ridiculously over-represented (per citizen) if it became a state by itself.

Good enough reason to say No. There is no territory which has a "right" to Statehood. Guam should be offered Independence.

Guam doesn't want independence. The US won't risk losing their military foothold in that part of the Pacific even if Guam did want out.

They should be offered Independence. So they don't want it? That's an argument against not for Statehood.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Your argument amounts to "Democrats shouln't increase the court because Republicans will strike back with excessive force" and it amounts to "don't hurt us or we will destroy everything". I'm inclined to call your bluff.

Then you're a fool. Reid called it a bluff when McConnell said he'd use the new precedent and lost 3 Supreme Court seats because of it. Changes to Congressional rules for short term gain have literally never gone well long term.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I already did, and pretty much every Democratic leaning person on this forum who thinks long term agreed. All adding seats would do is cause a death spiral where every new president does it every time they and their party win majority. It'd be Reid's disaster all over again.

Reid may have started it. The repubs didn’t need to jump in like it was a party.

Why should the demos take a hit and attempt to set things straight? Repubs would only see it as an opportunity.

4 new seats might be more drastic than necessary.
Just 2 would restore the Chief Justice's power of tiebreak, which makes a lot of sense to me even though he does lean to the conservative wing.
Then if Thomas or Alito go, the court can be made more progressive with a regular appointment.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Reid may have started it. The repubs didn’t need to jump in like it was a party.

Why should the demos take a hit and attempt to set things straight? Repubs would only see it as an opportunity.

4 new seats might be more drastic than necessary.
Just 2 would restore the Chief Justice's power of tiebreak, which makes a lot of sense to me even though he does lean to the conservative wing.
Then if Thomas or Alito go, the court can be made more progressive with a regular appointment.

Why would they settle for restoring a tie? By that point we've established the court just exists to rubberstamp your side whenever you're in power. It'd only be logical to always add +2 or +3 for your side whenever you take power to ensure a good majority.

[San Lumen]

4 new seats might be more drastic than necessary.
Just 2 would restore the Chief Justice's power of tiebreak, which makes a lot of sense to me even though he does lean to the conservative wing.
Then if Thomas or Alito go, the court can be made more progressive with a regular appointment.

Why would they settle for restoring a tie? By that point we've established the court just exists to rubberstamp your side whenever you're in power. It'd only be logical to always add +2 or +3 for your side whenever you take power to ensure a good majority.

and at some point the court would be so is insanely large reform of the system would be wanted by many.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why would they settle for restoring a tie? By that point we've established the court just exists to rubberstamp your side whenever you're in power. It'd only be logical to always add +2 or +3 for your side whenever you take power to ensure a good majority.

and at some point the court would be so is insanely large reform of the system would be wanted by many.

Good luck restoring faith in the institution at that point. Tbh if court packing happens I almost expect new nullification crises to start popping up with states just disregarding the Fed and it being chaos.