NationStates

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:18 pm**

Marxist Germany wrote:
Heloin wrote:The Smaller federal distract wouldn't have electors. Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.

What happened to the 23rd amendment?

The way the amendment reads making DC a state would remove the need for the 23rd.

Also DC gets 3 EC votes not 2

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:20 pm**

Marxist Germany wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:The government shouldn’t be involved in sending people to death. This is what I don’t get with you “pro-lifers” you all claim your against the murder of innocents yet you support the death penalty and refuse to support any measures to make abortion rare.

It’s like your not “pro-life” at all but pro-birth.

I am pro-life and against the death penalty and pro abstinence+contraceptive sex ed. Overgeneralising and threadjacking is not a great idea.

There’s a reason why I put pro-lifers in quotation marks. Because I don’t believe those who claim to be pro-life yet support the death penalty, or sex Ed, or anything that would reduce the need for abortion to be actually pro-life.

My post wasn’t directed at you

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:23 pm**

Marxist Germany wrote:
Heloin wrote:The Smaller federal distract wouldn't have electors. Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.

What happened to the 23rd amendment?

It'd become irrelevant and could and should be discarded. Amendments aren't permanent, it's in the name.

Services are already provided by the local authorities. Nothing would change in that regard aside from fear mongering.

The local authorities being the proposed State legislature/city council, which would be run by DC the state.

Services in DC are already provided by the local government of DC. Turning DC into a state and separating it from the Federal capital won't change this.

This is a lie in both ways. Finland never voted to ban water and the situation that lead to this lie still had a minority of politicians who were asked the question "would they look into restricting it" say yes.

I gave an outlandish example for satirical effect. My point is that DC never held a binding referendum, therefore, their "vote" is easily discarded.

You gave a stupid example to try and disprove a binding referendum that has already been approved by half of Congress that you disagree with.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:36 pm**

DC is an imperial capital whose transient population is primarily composed bureaucrats and people whose livelihoods depend on the expansion of government bureaucracy. It's not a rooted community, but is instead composed of social-climbing strangers from all over who are intensely loyal to their own social class and no one else.

It is a decadent playground for the rich and overeducated, and I would feel happy if it was consumed by the festering swamp from which it crawled from.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:40 pm**

State of Columbia? Why not? I'd rather see Puerto Rico get statehood but D.C. is fine too.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:43 pm**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:State of Columbia? Why not? I'd rather see Puerto Rico get statehood but D.C. is fine too.

Why not both

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:44 pm**

Thermodolia wrote:
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:State of Columbia? Why not? I'd rather see Puerto Rico get statehood but D.C. is fine too.

Why not both

Puerto Rico is more of a pressing issue IMO. D.C. gets all the aid if a hurricane hits even without statehood. Puerto Rico is lucky to get a pittance as a territory. Nobody deserves that.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:47 pm**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Why not both

Puerto Rico is more of a pressing issue IMO. D.C. gets all the aid if a hurricane hits even without statehood. Puerto Rico is lucky to get a pittance as a territory. Nobody deserves that.

DC is all behind statehood while Puerto Rico is on the fence about the issue. Don't get me wrong, Puerto Rico has pressing issues, but the territory's intentions on statehood while recently leaning towards yes have always been a bit too close to call. They'll be voting again this year so fingers crossed.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:47 pm**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Why not both

Puerto Rico is more of a pressing issue IMO. D.C. gets all the aid if a hurricane hits even without statehood. Puerto Rico is lucky to get a pittance as a territory. Nobody deserves that.

It's not even a difficult calculus. PR has 3 million people in it, DC has 700,000.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:48 pm**

Heloin wrote:
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Puerto Rico is more of a pressing issue IMO. D.C. gets all the aid if a hurricane hits even without statehood. Puerto Rico is lucky to get a pittance as a territory. Nobody deserves that.

DC is all behind statehood while Puerto Rico is on the fence about the issue. Don't get me wrong, Puerto Rico has pressing issues, but the territory's intentions on statehood while recently leaning towards yes have always been a bit too close to call. They'll be voting again this year so fingers crossed.

According to the latest polls the majority of Puerto Ricans are pro-statehood. About or above 60% IIRC. Good enough for me, and good enough for Congress.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:49 pm**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Why not both

Puerto Rico is more of a pressing issue IMO. D.C. gets all the aid if a hurricane hits even without statehood. Puerto Rico is lucky to get a pittance as a territory. Nobody deserves that.

No I definitely agree. PR should be a state and those territories that aren’t going to be states should have the ability to elect an actual representative to congress instead of a delegate.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:57 pm**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Heloin wrote:DC is all behind statehood while Puerto Rico is on the fence about the issue. Don't get me wrong, Puerto Rico has pressing issues, but the territory's intentions on statehood while recently leaning towards yes have always been a bit too close to call. They'll be voting again this year so fingers crossed.

According to the latest polls the majority of Puerto Ricans are pro-statehood. About or above 60% IIRC. Good enough for me, and good enough for Congress.

Other states need to consent to it, so it's unlikely their Congressmen will willfully dilute their own power.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:58 pm**

Bear Stearns wrote:
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
According to the latest polls the majority of Puerto Ricans are pro-statehood. About or above 60% IIRC. Good enough for me, and good enough for Congress.

Other states need to consent to it, so it's unlikely their Congressmen will willfully dilute their own power.

Why, exactly, do other states need to consent to it? It doesn't affect them.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:59 pm**

Heloin wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:What happened to the 23rd amendment?

It'd become irrelevant and could and should be discarded. Amendments aren't permanent, it's in the name.

Which requires 3/4 of states to remove, until then, Donald gets 3 Electors.

The local authorities being the proposed State legislature/city council, which would be run by DC the state.

Services in DC are already provided by the local government of DC. Turning DC into a state and separating it from the Federal capital won't change this.

The federal enclave would be too small to provide for itself, hence the reliance on the state.

I gave an outlandish example for satirical effect. My point is that DC never held a binding referendum, therefore, their "vote" is easily discarded.

You gave a stupid example to try and disprove a binding referendum that has already been approved by half of Congress that you disagree with.

HR 51 is not a referendum.

Thermodolia wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:What happened to the 23rd amendment?

The way the amendment reads making DC a state would remove the need for the 23rd.

Also DC gets 3 EC votes not 2

Where did I say 2?

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:01 pm**

Greed and Death wrote:
Allenstadt wrote:I really doubt that anyone will make DC a state soon, but it will probably soon get home government (or should)
I doubt the republicans would be as angry if they were trying to make Wyomning a state.

It already has home rule subject to congressional override.

Wyoming was made a state in 1890 after its population had tripled in a 10 year period and when farming made up some 80% of the US population. DC's population has declined form its peak in the 1950s and has only slightly began to rebound since the late 2000's a trend most likely reversed due to the pandemic and civil unrest.

In summation Wyoming was made a state when farming and ranching was the focus of the US economy and envisioned to continue as such, currently the focus of the US economy is the suburbs which DC lacks (because they are in neighboring states states) so population projections will most likely have DC stagnating or shirking again.

DC was better when it was the backwater ghetto slum it was back in the day, as opposed to the ruling class playground of lobbyists and psychotic yuppies interning for the FBI.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:03 pm**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Bear Stearns wrote:
Other states need to consent to it, so it's unlikely their Congressmen will willfully dilute their own power.

Why, exactly, do other states need to consent to it? It doesn't affect them.

Because Congress, which represents those states, has to approve it. Different areas of land can't simply become US states because they want it, the nation receiving them has to consent to it as well. And the addition of more states does affect them, including relative representation, distribution of resources, political party strength, etc.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:05 pm**

Bear Stearns wrote:
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Why, exactly, do other states need to consent to it? It doesn't affect them.

Because Congress, which represents those states, has to approve it. Different areas of land can't simply become US states because they want it, the nation receiving them has to consent to it as well. And the addition of more states does affect them, including relative representation, distribution of resources, political party strength, etc.

In other words, it doesn't matter unless you're a fucking partisan hack. Too bad I don't give a shit what they think.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:09 pm**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Bear Stearns wrote:
Because Congress, which represents those states, has to approve it. Different areas of land can't simply become US states because they want it, the nation receiving them has to consent to it as well. And the addition of more states does affect them, including relative representation, distribution of resources, political party strength, etc.

In other words, it doesn't matter unless you're a fucking partisan hack. Too bad I don't give a shit what they think.

Huh? That's an odd conclusion to arrive at. We're not obligated to accept anyone as a state simply because they want it.

And the issues I mentioned transcend political parties, and are things that all states, especially smaller ones, are concerned about.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:14 pm**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
In other words, it doesn't matter unless you're a fucking partisan hack. Too bad I don't give a shit what they think.

Well, unfortunately our country runs on the premise that being ruled by partisan hacks is the best way to run a government.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:17 pm**

Yes, but only if you allow California to break up.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:19 pm**

Bear Stearns wrote:
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
In other words, it doesn't matter unless you're a fucking partisan hack. Too bad I don't give a shit what they think.

Huh? That's an odd conclusion to arrive at. We're not obligated to accept anyone as a state simply because they want it.

And the issues I mentioned transcend political parties, and are things that all states, especially smaller ones, are concerned about.

It's the only conclusion. There aren't any good reasons to keep statehood away from DC so people have to spin tales and lies to justify disenfranchisement. If it can be a part of Maryland then the lie of neutral territory is made clear thus they can be their own state. If the reason is neutral territory then why can't that area of the distract be separated to be that neutral territory. Every single case presented to deny statehood to DC is just admitting that you don't like how they vote.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:34 pm**

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Yes, but only if you allow California to break up.

Does California *want* to break up?
I'm aware of some people advocating for it, but they're about as numerous and relevant as, say, Northumbrians, afaik.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:17 pm**

Necroghastia wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:Yes, but only if you allow California to break up.

Does California *want* to break up?
I'm aware of some people advocating for it, but they're about as numerous and relevant as, say, Northumbrians, afaik.

That's unfair. The State of Jefferson folks have at least some note worthy movement to their cause.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:47 pm**

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Yes, but only if you allow California to break up.

Might as well abolish all the states and use counties as the second-level political division.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:51 pm**

Heloin wrote:
Necroghastia wrote:Does California *want* to break up?
I'm aware of some people advocating for it, but they're about as numerous and relevant as, say, Northumbrians, afaik.

That's unfair. The State of Jefferson folks have at least some note worthy movement to their cause.

I would support Jefferson being the 51st state. Could have been the 49th state if the Japanese didn't attack.
https://ancestralfindings.com/the-ghost ... now-about/

NationStates

Make DC a state?