ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Washington DC issues , Washington DC politics

View Poll Results: Should DC get Statehood?
Yes. 61 84.72%
No. 11 15.28%
Voters: 72. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 29th June 2020, 09:11 AM   #201
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
We don't have independent states now. That's just pure mythology.

Only about 10 or 11 (depending on how you exactly define it) states are financially independent and none of them, not even the big dick swingers like California and Texas, are anywhere near militarily or diplomatically independant.

Without the Federal Government giving it it's welfare (and that's exactly what it is just to use the language that will poke them the most) check, most of the states that harp on the most about evil big government and their state's rights would be sleeping in a cardboard box under an underpass.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:16 AM   #202
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
There was an okay-ish RTS Game for the PC years ago called Shattered Union where a terrorist attack in DC leaves the US without a functioning government and the US splits into major factions and engages in a civil war.

The EU sends in peacekeepers and manages to establish a force in the DC area, but the rest of the country forms into new countries fighting for dominance.

California Commonwealth: Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah
Confederacy: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Southern Virginia.
European Union Occupation: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey (Parts), Pennsylvania (Parts), Northern Virginia.
Great Plains Federation: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin
New England Alliance: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey (Parts), New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (Parts), Rhode Island, West Virginia, Vermont
Pacifica: Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming
Republic of Texas: Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

(In story Russia uses the events to retake Alaska and Hawaii just basically goes "Screw it we're on our own and in the middle of vast sea of nothing so you guys do you" so they don't come up in gameplay, although I think they sold an expansion pack that included Russia as a playable faction)
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:43 AM   #203
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,827
I think it would be odd for an individual city to be a state. Rhode Island is already tiny enough.

Some podcast I was listening to pointed out that large swaths of what was formerly DC was returned to Virginia's control. https://historyengine.richmond.edu/e...20year%201790. Since this is the USA, this step was taken to defend slavery. But there's no reason why a similar step couldn't be taken for a good reason.

I see no reason why the larger, residential parts of DC shouldn't just be returned to Virginia and Maryland as appropriate. The tiny core of federal buildings can remain sovereign DC territory, but I don't see why any residential zoned areas should be under federal control.

This would solve the issue of the residents of DC having no representation without adding a state.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:44 AM   #204
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Here's the proble with your analysis. It is deliberately obtuse. You're pretending that the GOP hasn't been and isn't overwhelmingly playing identity politics. They just won't say it out loud. They deliberately appeal to white voters and suppress the political participation of black voters. They promote policies that are racist and oppressive to people of color.

Let's be honest, if DC's population looked like Wyoming you'd be first in line pushing for Statehood. And not because you're racist, but because you know that African Americans overwhelmingly tend to vote Democratic. More than anything, you just don't want to see two more Democratic Senators.
Interesting assertion.
might be better to say "I believe that" instead of "lets be honest"- at least if you wish to avoid making an assertion that would require you to be psychic to know.

That aside, though,
What would be wrong with Ziggurat wanting statehood for DC solely because it would create two more Republican Senators? Seems like a good reason, no?
You would be in favor of it, if it did that, right?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 29th June 2020 at 09:47 AM.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:53 AM   #205
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think it would be odd for an individual city to be a state. Rhode Island is already tiny enough.

Some podcast I was listening to pointed out that large swaths of what was formerly DC was returned to Virginia's control. https://historyengine.richmond.edu/e...20year%201790.

I see no reason why the larger, residential parts of DC shouldn't just be returned to Virginia and Maryland as appropriate. The tiny core of federal buildings can remain sovereign DC territory, but I don't see why any residential zoned areas should be under federal control.

This would solve the issue of the residents of DC having no representation without adding a state.
You do understand that what constitutes a State is entirely arbitrary. So what that Rhode Island is geographically small? More people live there than in Alaska. Yes, DC could be rolled into Maryland or Virginia and these people would have Congressional representation but it would marginally disenfranchise the citizens of Maryland.

Do you really think it is right that the 550,000 citizens of Wyoming get 2 Senators and the 700,000 citizens of DC gets none?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:58 AM   #206
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You do understand that what constitutes a State is entirely arbitrary. So what that Rhode Island is geographically small? More people live there than in Alaska. Yes, DC could be rolled into Maryland or Virginia and these people would have Congressional representation but it would marginally disenfranchise the citizens of Maryland.

Do you really think it is right that the 550,000 citizens of Wyoming get 2 Senators and the 700,000 citizens of DC gets none?
Yet the "Statehood" solution would marginally disenfranchise the citizens of 48 out of 50 States. Some, not as marginally as others.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 10:01 AM   #207
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,827
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You do understand that what constitutes a State is entirely arbitrary. So what that Rhode Island is geographically small? More people live there than in Alaska. Yes, DC could be rolled into Maryland or Virginia and these people would have Congressional representation but it would marginally disenfranchise the citizens of Maryland.

Do you really think it is right that the 550,000 citizens of Wyoming get 2 Senators and the 700,000 citizens of DC gets none?
It's unacceptable that the people living in DC have no representation. Keeping DC disenfranchised is unambiguously unjust, but there's other options available besides statehood. My jab about RI was mostly a joke.

It would be strange to have a single city be a state. Is the city/state going to have a mayor and a governor? Is it going to have both municipal and state government, even though they would be redundant? Are the city council members also going to be state reps? Seems like a lot of government bloat for a single city.

Creating a DC state would create something entirely new in this country. I suppose that isn't bad per se, but it would be unusual. Just giving the land back to Maryland and Virginia seems easier to me, but I suppose there could be good reasons not to do so, though they don't spring to mind.

I don't see how adding a large population to Maryland would be disenfranchising. They'd probably get seats in Congress out of the deal by adding such a large population. The DC area would probably be its own congressional district(s) like most big cities, unless it got gerrymandered. The mayor of DC could just be a normal big-city mayor and not a governor-mayor hybrid.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 29th June 2020 at 10:13 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 10:20 AM   #208
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 12,801
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The Declaration of Independence, although a lovely historical document, holds no legal standing in the US. It was just a well-worded "F.U." to Britain. Some people imagine that, coming from some of the same people who wrote the later Constitution, it gives insight into their minds and therefore can be used to inform legal interpretations of the Constitution. I'm not aware they've ever met with success in a single case where that's been attempted.

It's a marvellous source for passionate appeals to rhetoric, though! Better than a Bible quote, or Shakespeare, when it comes to appealing to the masses.
I entirely agree. In fact, some years back I proposed we (the forum) derive the heart of the same arguments from first principles, an effort I quickly abandoned (as seemingly permanently inopportune. Perhaps, however, the time has come.) At any rate, my position is that it is precisely when you argue democracy and human rights from first principles, and not from appeals to authority, you gain the ability to clearly identify the field of play being established, as well as whatever might also be diametrically opposed to the very first grounding principles the entire legal and philosophical enterprise is based on.

Why all that? Take political equality, for in political theory we are talking things political, not some other. Say you take as first principle the need of all life forms to make choices; i.e, seek food and avoid danger, behaviors we observe from the chemotaxis in bacteria on up to abstract deliberation in humans. The assumed question here being, how might one approach Bentham's suggestion to maximize the common good, or similar. As basic survival requires choice, allowing for freedom of choice, or voice, in political terms can serve as the first principle, and be seen as legitimately part of survival itself. (Later assumptions need be agreed, such as how to deal with irrational choices and irrationality, which underlie arguments for the adoption of a republican form of government (small r)).

For any legal system based on arguing from any such first principle, one essential characteristic is that the lines of argument not be self-contradictory, illogical or whimsical -- and to your comment -- should extend from the philosophy directly and explicitly into the design of whatever legal system results. This makes it crystal clear which counterarguments consist of attacks on the logic itself (e.g. attempts to ignore or claim the opposite is true), thus being fairly considered anathema to the entire legal edifice, and which are fair arguments about how to best implement principle in law and practice, or are matters of policy disagreement.

Who cares? Apparently everyone who has ever claimed (a) women unfit (b) nonwhites unfit owing to real or posited physical differences, or (c) made a "Jordan 'Beanie Hat' Peterson" argument regarding, ahem, IQ (the irony, please). Because all such arguments and claims are easily refuted, as well as clearly being efforts to undermine the entire edifice of democracy, they can fairly and judiciously be classified as maliciously and malevolently outside and contrary to the field of play, thus hate speech, thus in extreme cases unprotected by the right to voice.

The whole fetid stack of alt-right, neonazi arguments comes crashing down in a pile of quickly evaporating hogwash. That includes "libertarians"; closet übermensch gazers, else their proposed anarchy could not be the fairy tale they ardently wish for.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 10:47 AM   #209
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,751
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It would be strange to have a single city be a state. Is the city/state going to have a mayor and a governor? Is it going to have both municipal and state government, even though they would be redundant? Are the city council members also going to be state reps? Seems like a lot of government bloat for a single city.
What's strange is having Florida as a state. It's kind of ironic to talk about government bloat when we're dealing with DC (which must already contend with out-of-state Congressional Critters vetoing the will of life-long residents).

Off the top of my head, the type of government is left to the broad discretion of the state. Almost all states insist on bicameral legislatures (including Wyoming), but Nebraska has just a single chamber. Georgia has almost three times as many counties as California. Alaska and Lousiana do not have any counties (they have boroughs and parishes).

DC residents and political leaders can figure out what type of government works for them.

The promise of federalism is that states allow for more representative government, and they can adapt to local conditions (rather than an imposed/fixed standard; it makes sense that building codes in Tennesse are not the same as building codes in California).
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 10:50 AM   #210
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,385
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Here's the proble with your analysis. It is deliberately obtuse. You're pretending that the GOP hasn't been and isn't overwhelmingly playing identity politics. They just won't say it out loud.
And that makes Democrats saying it out loud good? No, that's not the way it works.

Quote:
Let's be honest, if DC's population looked like Wyoming you'd be first in line pushing for Statehood.
Wrong again.

DC wasn't prevented from having statehood in the first place because of racial makup of the city. To the extent that those initial reasons are still valid, race still doesn't have anything to do with it.

Quote:
And not because you're racist, but because you know that African Americans overwhelmingly tend to vote Democratic. More than anything, you just don't want to see two more Democratic Senators.
And still wrong. I'm OK with Puerto Rico becoming a state, if they want to (I don't think they do, though). And I don't think anyone doubts which party their senators would come from.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 10:51 AM   #211
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,048
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
I entirely agree. In fact, some years back I proposed we (the forum) derive the heart of the same arguments from first principles, an effort I quickly abandoned (as seemingly permanently inopportune. Perhaps, however, the time has come.) At any rate, my position is that it is precisely when you argue democracy and human rights from first principles, and not from appeals to authority, you gain the ability to clearly identify the field of play being established, as well as whatever might also be diametrically opposed to the very first grounding principles the entire legal and philosophical enterprise is based on.

Why all that? Take political equality, for in political theory we are talking things political, not some other. Say you take as first principle the need of all life forms to make choices; i.e, seek food and avoid danger, behaviors we observe from the chemotaxis in bacteria on up to abstract deliberation in humans. The assumed question here being, how might one approach Bentham's suggestion to maximize the common good, or similar. As basic survival requires choice, allowing for freedom of choice, or voice, in political terms can serve as the first principle, and be seen as legitimately part of survival itself. (Later assumptions need be agreed, such as how to deal with irrational choices and irrationality, which underlie arguments for the adoption of a republican form of government (small r)).

For any legal system based on arguing from any such first principle, one essential characteristic is that the lines of argument not be self-contradictory, illogical or whimsical -- and to your comment -- should extend from the philosophy directly and explicitly into the design of whatever legal system results. This makes it crystal clear which counterarguments consist of attacks on the logic itself (e.g. attempts to ignore or claim the opposite is true), thus being fairly considered anathema to the entire legal edifice, and which are fair arguments about how to best implement principle in law and practice, or are matters of policy disagreement.

Who cares? Apparently everyone who has ever claimed (a) women unfit (b) nonwhites unfit owing to real or posited physical differences, or (c) made a "Jordan 'Beanie Hat' Peterson" argument regarding, ahem, IQ (the irony, please). Because all such arguments and claims are easily refuted, as well as clearly being efforts to undermine the entire edifice of democracy, they can fairly and judiciously be classified as maliciously and malevolently outside and contrary to the field of play, thus hate speech, thus in extreme cases unprotected by the right to voice.

The whole fetid stack of alt-right, neonazi arguments comes crashing down in a pile of quickly evaporating hogwash. That includes "libertarians"; closet übermensch gazers, else their proposed anarchy could not be the fairy tale they ardently wish for.
A lovely notion for your fantasy universe, but in this one the primary purpose of the state is to protect private property. Everything else comes after that. Democracy and equality are lovely if you can fit them in, but it's all about the Benjamins, not Benjamin's principles.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 10:53 AM   #212
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,587
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's unacceptable that the people living in DC have no representation. Keeping DC disenfranchised is unambiguously unjust, but there's other options available besides statehood. My jab about RI was mostly a joke.
It is, and this ought to be considered an urgent problem. The other options we're talking about have been proposed in the past--retrocession or constitutional amendment, and they've failed. Neither Maryland nor DC residents want DC to be returned to Maryland, so it's just not a practical option--Virginia's legislature had to approve the retrocession of 1847. We've already hemmed and hawed over this for 200 years.

Quote:
It would be strange to have a single city be a state. Is the city/state going to have a mayor and a governor? Is it going to have both municipal and state government, even though they would be redundant? Are the city council members also going to be state reps? Seems like a lot of government bloat for a single city.
Here in New York we have a mayor for the city as a whole and borough presidents for each of the constituent boroughs (which are nearly, but not quite, coterminous with the constituent counties). The borough presidents do...not much. They show up at ceremonies, appoint community board members, and have some influence over development deals. The bulk of power is in the hands of the mayor.

Presumably something similar would happen in DC. Either the state government doesn't do a lot, with the actual responsibility for governance falling to the city, or the city transfers some of its responsibilities to the state government.

Quote:
Creating a DC state would create something entirely new in this country. I suppose that isn't bad per se, but it would be unusual. Just giving the land back to Maryland and Virginia seems easier to me, but I suppose there could be good reasons not to do so, though they don't spring to mind.
Sure, but creating a state out of a majority-minority archipelago 2000 miles away from the mainland was unusual in 1959. Doesn't seem like a good reason not to do it, if it provides representation to people who have been denied it for far too long. We'd get used to it.

It's a bit surprising, but creating a state is probably easier. It just requires an up-or-down vote in Congress, whereas retrocession would require both congress and Maryland (or whoever) to approve, along with the residents of DC themselves, and they don't look keen on the idea.

Quote:
I don't see how adding a large population to Maryland would be disenfranchising.
It wouldn't, it's just not going to happen.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 11:00 AM   #213
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,827
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
It is, and this ought to be considered an urgent problem. The other options we're talking about have been proposed in the past--retrocession or constitutional amendment, and they've failed. Neither Maryland nor DC residents want DC to be returned to Maryland, so it's just not a practical option--Virginia's legislature had to approve the retrocession of 1847. We've already hemmed and hawed over this for 200 years.


Here in New York we have a mayor for the city as a whole and borough presidents for each of the constituent boroughs (which are nearly, but not quite, coterminous with the constituent counties). The borough presidents do...not much. They show up at ceremonies, appoint community board members, and have some influence over development deals. The bulk of power is in the hands of the mayor.

Presumably something similar would happen in DC. Either the state government doesn't do a lot, with the actual responsibility for governance falling to the city, or the city transfers some of its responsibilities to the state government.


Sure, but creating a state out of a majority-minority archipelago 2000 miles away from the mainland was unusual in 1959. Doesn't seem like a good reason not to do it, if it provides representation to people who have been denied it for far too long. We'd get used to it.

It's a bit surprising, but creating a state is probably easier. It just requires an up-or-down vote in Congress, whereas retrocession would require both congress and Maryland (or whoever) to approve, along with the residents of DC themselves, and they don't look keen on the idea.


It wouldn't, it's just not going to happen.
I'm not aware of the history of Maryland-DC resistance to retrocession, so that's interesting.

If we're talking pragmatic solutions for the immediate future, statehood is out. Republicans will never vote to create 2 more liberal Senators.

Practically speaking, I don't really see a path forward, either through statehood or retrocession, unless there is a massive shift in political power in this country.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 11:02 AM   #214
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's unacceptable that the people living in DC have no representation. Keeping DC disenfranchised is unambiguously unjust, but there's other options available besides statehood. My jab about RI was mostly a joke.

It would be strange to have a single city be a state. Is the city/state going to have a mayor and a governor? Is it going to have both municipal and state government, even though they would be redundant? Are the city council members also going to be state reps? Seems like a lot of government bloat for a single city.

Creating a DC state would create something entirely new in this country. I suppose that isn't bad per se, but it would be unusual. Just giving the land back to Maryland and Virginia seems easier to me, but I suppose there could be good reasons not to do so, though they don't spring to mind.

I don't see how adding a large population to Maryland would be disenfranchising. They'd probably get seats in Congress out of the deal by adding such a large population. The DC area would probably be its own congressional district(s) like most big cities, unless it got gerrymandered. The mayor of DC could just be a normal big-city mayor and not a governor-mayor hybrid.
280,000 citizens in Wyoming wield as much political power as 42 million citizens of California. It isn't fair to give DC that kind of power imbalance either. But the Senate is the most grotesquely unfair institution in the US. IIRC more than 5 million citizens voted for Democratic Senators than GOP Senators. Yet the GOP Senate has stonewalled almost every single bill passed through the House. More than 500 bills sit on Mcconnell's desk and are not even being considered by the Senate.

Only in America could more votes by a substantial amount be cast for the losers. If this was a true democratic republic, the Democrats would control the Senate, the House and the Executive branch. So we get a political system that ignores the marketplace of ideas.

Getting back to making DC a State. That a city has never been a state is meaningless since all of this is arbitrary. And how they organize their government is up to them.



.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 11:03 AM   #215
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I'm not aware of the history of Maryland-DC resistance to retrocession, so that's interesting.

If we're talking pragmatic solutions for the immediate future, statehood is out. Republicans will never vote to create 2 more liberal Senators.

Practically speaking, I don't really see a path forward, either through statehood or retrocession, unless there is a massive shift in political power in this country.
It's not out if the Democrats sweep in November.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 11:08 AM   #216
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,587
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
If we're talking pragmatic solutions for the immediate future, statehood is out. Republicans will never vote to create 2 more liberal Senators.
Yeah, but Republicans won't control the Senate forever. It's pretty much just a waiting game if the Democrats are committed to DC statehood.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 11:13 AM   #217
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,827
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Yeah, but Republicans won't control the Senate forever. It's pretty much just a waiting game if the Democrats are committed to DC statehood.
Knowing the current Democratic Party, I wouldn't count on it. Maybe in a decade or two after the more conservative members die off or get primaried out of power.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 11:28 AM   #218
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post

Yet the "Statehood" solution would marginally disenfranchise the citizens of 48 out of 50 States. Some, not as marginally as others.
*Head desk* This is absurdist surrealism at this point.

This is what it's like to be in a position of privilege for so long that attempts to make it fair again feel like an attack on you.

"It's unfair to me to take away my unfair advantage."

You're a child pitching a fit because mommy has always liked you more and gives you extra dessert, so when you go to a relatives house and your aunt gives you and your brother the same dessert, it feels like she likes you less.

Your entire argument is "The system has been unfair for so long that I'm used to it, therefore it's unfair to change it."

An EC Vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times an EC Vote in California. If you can't call making the EC Vote in Wyoming and an EC Vote in California the same "Disenfranchising Wyoming." It's adjusting for Wyoming being over-franchised.

And this holds true for Senate power distribution as well.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 29th June 2020 at 11:33 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 11:39 AM   #219
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Head desk* This is absurdist surrealism at this point.

This is what it's like to be in a position of privilege for so long that attempts to make it fair again feel like an attack on you.

"It's unfair to me to take away my unfair advantage."


You're a child pitching a fit because mommy has always liked you more and gives you extra dessert, so when you go to a relatives house and your aunt gives you and your brother the same dessert, it feels like she likes you less.

Your entire argument is "The system has been unfair for so long that I'm used to it, therefore it's unfair to change it."

An EC Vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times an EC Vote in California. If you can't call making the EC Vote in Wyoming and an EC Vote in California the same "Disenfranchising Wyoming." It's adjusting for Wyoming being over-franchised.

And this holds true for Senate power distribution as well.
I know, right?

The political divide in this country is not "state' vs 'state' but urban vs rural. Giving a densely urban area 2 Senators doesn't resolve the imbalance, but it is a start.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 29th June 2020 at 11:44 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 12:18 PM   #220
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,827
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I know, right?

The political divide in this country is not "state' vs 'state' but urban vs rural. Giving a densely urban area 2 Senators doesn't resolve the imbalance, but it is a start.
I've we're blue-sky daydreaming about fixing this, abolishing the Senate would be more effective than trying to balance the books by admitting new states.

The barrier to either is the same. So long as Republicans wield any significant power, nothing can be done.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 12:31 PM   #221
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,587
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Knowing the current Democratic Party, I wouldn't count on it. Maybe in a decade or two after the more conservative members die off or get primaried out of power.
The recent vote in the House was 232-180, with one Democrat voting against. It's possible Democrats will disappoint if it goes before an evenly split Senate, but I think we might already be at the point where even conservative Democrats acknowledge the problem.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 02:13 PM   #222
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I know, right?

The political divide in this country is not "state' vs 'state' but urban vs rural. Giving a densely urban area 2 Senators doesn't resolve the imbalance, but it is a start.
Interesting point.
Are there no urban voters in Texas? Rural ones in California?
Nebraska, Arizona, Ohio- do any of these States not have a mixture of both urban and rural voters? Even Alaska has city dwellers.

PR is a combination of urbanites and rural residents as well.

In fact, the only State that would not be a combination of urban/rural is the proposed one- DC.
Reducing the representative power of any State will reduce the representative power of both groups.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 02:15 PM   #223
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Head desk* This is absurdist surrealism at this point.

This is what it's like to be in a position of privilege for so long that attempts to make it fair again feel like an attack on you.

"It's unfair to me to take away my unfair advantage."

You're a child pitching a fit because mommy has always liked you more and gives you extra dessert, so when you go to a relatives house and your aunt gives you and your brother the same dessert, it feels like she likes you less.

Your entire argument is "The system has been unfair for so long that I'm used to it, therefore it's unfair to change it."

An EC Vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times an EC Vote in California. If you can't call making the EC Vote in Wyoming and an EC Vote in California the same "Disenfranchising Wyoming." It's adjusting for Wyoming being over-franchised.

And this holds true for Senate power distribution as well.
Turns out I am not from Wyoming Miss Cleo.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 02:43 PM   #224
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,751
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Interesting point.
Are there no urban voters in Texas? Rural ones in California?
Nebraska, Arizona, Ohio- do any of these States not have a mixture of both urban and rural voters? Even Alaska has city dwellers.
That's kind of part of the problem, dude.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:12 PM   #225
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Interesting point.
Are there no urban voters in Texas? Rural ones in California?
Nebraska, Arizona, Ohio- do any of these States not have a mixture of both urban and rural voters? Even Alaska has city dwellers.

In fact, the only State that would not be a combination of urban/rural is the proposed one- DC.
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, there are urban dwellers in Texas and rural voters in California. And in the cities of both, Democrats for the most part, rule. One only need to look at detailed national voting maps. Huge swaths of red with little circles of blue.


Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Reducing the representative power of any State will reduce the representative power of both groups.
So?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:17 PM   #226
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, there are urban dwellers in Texas and rural voters in California. And in the cities of both, Democrats for the most part, rule. One only need to look at detailed national voting maps. Huge swaths of red with little circles of blue.




So?
So?
That is the response....So?

I do love that

Reducing the relative representative power of all of the citizens of 48 of the 50 States and that of the rural residents of the remaining two, is a bit more than "so" IMO
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:24 PM   #227
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
"So" is the best you deserve while you keep pretending to miss the point.

*Very slowly* When something is unfair, and you make it fair, that isn't unfair to the people it was unfairly advantageous to before.

Wyoming has moving voting power than California. We want to give them the same voting power. What part of this could you possibly not understand?

DC has not voting power. We want to give it voting power. What part of this could you possibly not understand?

All the representative power of the other 48 states you're pretending to be super-concerned about is power taken from people. They should not have it.

This isn't complicated.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:28 PM   #228
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
So?
That is the response....So?

I do love that

Reducing the relative representative power of all of the citizens of 48 of the 50 States and that of the rural residents of the remaining two, is a bit more than "so" IMO
No it's not. We "share" power because it is the right thing to do.

I'm sure your answer that Wyoming, has the same number of Senators as California would amount to "so".
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:30 PM   #229
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No it's not. We "share" power because it is the right thing to do.

I'm sure your answer that Wyoming, has the same number of Senators as California would amount to "so".
Easily disprovable simply by reading my posts in this thread.

Examine the things you are "sure" about.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:35 PM   #230
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"So" is the best you deserve while you keep pretending to miss the point.

*Very slowly* When something is unfair, and you make it fair, that isn't unfair to the people it was unfairly advantageous to before.

Wyoming has moving voting power than California. We want to give them the same voting power. What part of this could you possibly not understand?

DC has not voting power. We want to give it voting power. What part of this could you possibly not understand?

All the representative power of the other 48 states you're pretending to be super-concerned about is power taken from people. They should not have it.

This isn't complicated.
*in 4/4 time, so keep up*
When something is unfair, and you make it more so, you are doing nothing to help make things fairer. You are being part of the problem.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 29th June 2020 at 03:36 PM.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:39 PM   #231
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Easily disprovable simply by reading my posts in this thread.

Examine the things you are "sure" about.
I find your posts to be convenient. You can bad mouth Wyoming knowing that Wyoming is a State with two Senators.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:54 PM   #232
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I find your posts to be convenient. You can bad mouth Wyoming knowing that Wyoming is a State with two Senators.
Why would I "badmouth" Wyoming?

Are you suggesting that there is something inherently unfair about a State having representation that is far in excess of what it "should" have in a fairly apportioned Senate?

Or are you suggesting that there is something inherently unfair about a State having representation that is far in excess of what it "should" have in a fairly apportioned Senate when that unfair representation benefits someone besides you?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 29th June 2020 at 03:56 PM.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:01 PM   #233
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,675
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Are you suggesting that there is something inherently unfair about a State having representation that is far in excess of what it "should" have in a fairly apportioned Senate?
"Are you suggesting unfairness is somehow unfair?"

And you wonder why people just assume you're not arguing in good faith.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:05 PM   #234
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Why would I "badmouth" Wyoming?

Are you suggesting that there is something inherently unfair about a State having representation that is far in excess of what it "should" have in a fairly apportioned Senate?

Or are you suggesting that there is something inherently unfair about a State having representation that is far in excess of what it "should" have in a fairly apportioned Senate when that unfair representation benefits someone besides you?
"fairly apportioned"?

Fair is a subjective term. DC has more citizens than Wyoming and you object to DC having Senators. You even suggest that franchising it's citizens is disenfranchising the citizens of other states.

As I said, "convenient".

Personally I believe that political power should be apportioned by population, not arbitrary lines on a map.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:09 PM   #235
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Are you suggesting unfairness is somehow unfair?"

And you wonder why people just assume you're not arguing in good faith.
Trying to tease out the difference between the unfairness in Wyoming having outsized representation and (the proposed)DC having outsized representation?

So far, there is none excepting an expectation of "whose side" the unfairness would benefit.
That is not compelling. It is not an appeal to making things more fair. It is expressing "bad faith argument" in order to grab for advantage.

So, yes, I do need to ask the poster if they believe "unfairness is unfair", because what they propose as a solution is unfair by their own definition of the concept!
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:15 PM   #236
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Trying to tease out the difference between the unfairness in Wyoming having outsized representation and (the proposed)DC having outsized representation?

So far, there is none excepting an expectation of "whose side" the unfairness would benefit.
That is not compelling. It is not an appeal to making things more fair. It is expressing "bad faith argument" in order to grab for advantage.

So, yes, I do need to ask the poster if they believe "unfairness is unfair", because what they propose as a solution is unfair by their own definition of the concept!
Your argument is particularly persuasive among the privileged. We've got the advantage and that's just the way it is and always should be.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:18 PM   #237
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
"fairly apportioned"?

Fair is a subjective term. DC has more citizens than Wyoming and you object to DC having Senators. You even suggest that franchising it's citizens is disenfranchising the citizens of other states.

As I said, "convenient".

Personally I believe that political power should be apportioned by population, not arbitrary lines on a map.
Me too.

Again, as easily demonstrated by my posts right here (you need not even search my post history) I am in favor of getting representation for the DC residents. Just not in a way that you seem to prefer.

You bring up Wyoming over and over again. Pointing out that it has two Senators with a minuscule population while California has only two with a tremendously larger one. Why?
Are you pointing to that imbalance as the way things should be?
Are you in favor of Wyoming and California having the same Senate representation?

Or do you think that California (and 47 other States) are getting screwed by that arrangement.?
If you think that (as do I), how can you put your support behind a proposal to create another State that screws over the 48?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:19 PM   #238
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Your argument is particularly persuasive among the privileged. We've got the advantage and that's just the way it is and always should be.
By "privledged", you mean you right?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:29 PM   #239
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Me too.

Again, as easily demonstrated by my posts right here (you need not even search my post history) I am in favor of getting representation for the DC residents. Just not in a way that you seem to prefer.

You bring up Wyoming over and over again. Pointing out that it has two Senators with a minuscule population while California has only two with a tremendously larger one. Why?
Are you pointing to that imbalance as the way things should be?
Are you in favor of Wyoming and California having the same Senate representation?

Or do you think that California (and 47 other States) are getting screwed by that arrangement.?
If you think that (as do I), how can you put your support behind a proposal to create another State that screws over the 48?
In the meantime, you'll take those Senate votes in Wyoming, Idaho, ND, SD, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Alaska that keeps the minority in power. The minority power that allowed McConnell not to consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee and push through Trump's troglodytes. The minority power that pushed through tax cuts for the wealthy. The minority power that is holding up over 500 pieces of legislation. There are also the EC votes.

As I said, your position is convenient and not surprising.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:38 PM   #240
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,346
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
By "privledged", you mean you right?
By "privileged" I mean privileged. Reading your argument is like hearing white people respond to "Black lives matter" with "all lives matter".

It's like hearing Trump saying he's opposed to socialism. Of course he is. He was born white with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Neither of you prescribe to a John Rawls ideology.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.