What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Avery said:
I am thankful that this sham trial (not sham on evidence mind you, sham on it actually mattering) will wrap up quickly and we can move forward with actually getting things done.

If I'm Schumer, I'm pushing DC and PR statehood as priorities right away alongside any Covid relief. PR senate seats are not a slam dunk for D's and you can be the filibuster will be turned off for those votes (though PR statehood actually does have a bit of R support from both Florida senators).
Click to expand...
Schumer can push covid relief in reconciliation. But DC and PR statehood will require blowing the filibuster.

I say blow it already. It should've never been enacted anyway (it wasn't at the time the Constitution was formed). We have a democracy to save. Blow the filibuster to expand voting rights, bolster Senate seats, and get things done. Otherwise, nothing is ever going to get done since neither party will ever have 60 votes. Republicans have zero incentive to make government work. Their entire platform right now is that government doesn't work. All they care about is ruling by executive order and giving tax cuts to the rich.

The failure to blow the filibuster to expand voting rights could come back very soon to bite every American in the backside when the next Republican comes in. They're not going to let mail-in voting and blacks derail their hold on power again.

Every failed democracy that has degraded into an authoritarian nightmare has reached inflection points where proponents of democracy could have stood up to the authoritarians and strengthened the guardrails of their democracy. For Germany, Bruning's administration didn't have to repeal the ban of the SA in 1932. Bruning's administration could have alleviated a lot of the economic pain in Germany by taking on French loans (instead, he exacerbated the effects of the Depression in an effort to repeal the Treaty of Versailles). Hindenburg didn't need to make Hitler Chancellor. Italy didn't need to keep Mussolini in power after he ordered the assassination of Matteoti in 1924. American bankers didn't need to do business with him anymore. Western powers could've joined together in the 1920s to get rid of Mussolini.

Likewise, what opportunities are we missing out today?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Avery said:
I am thankful that this sham trial (not sham on evidence mind you, sham on it actually mattering) will wrap up quickly and we can move forward with actually getting things done.

If I'm Schumer, I'm pushing DC and PR statehood as priorities right away alongside any Covid relief. PR senate seats are not a slam dunk for D's and you can be the filibuster will be turned off for those votes (though PR statehood actually does have a bit of R support from both Florida senators).
Click to expand...
DC should be part of virginia or maryland. PR should just be part of like florida or a carolina or something.
 
LogGrad98 said:
DC should be part of virginia or maryland. PR should just be part of like florida or a carolina or something.
Click to expand...
Using this logic, do we need two Dakotas and two Carolinas to give Republicans more power? Cant wyoming be combined with Montana and Oklahoma into Texas? Why should Democratic voices be weakened while insurrections’ strengthened?

Are the dakotas really that different culturally?
I don’t get why PR and DC should be combined with existing states and not clearly have their voices heard, like the Dakotas.

Unless the point is to maintain the status quo of empowering rural areas, I don’t get why DC and PR should be absorbed into existing states.

Frankly, I’m tired of backwards states with out of touch voters keeping this country from making progress. The majority shouldn’t be held hostage to the minority. The founders never intended for this.
 
LogGrad98 said:
DC should be part of virginia or maryland. PR should just be part of like florida or a carolina or something.
Click to expand...

Serious or joshing? If serious, why?

I can kind of understand the physical ground argument against DC as a state, but don't really think it outweighs the # of people in DC. PR I don't think there's any serious argument to not extend an offer of statehood.
 
Eminence said:
Serious or joshing? If serious, why?

I can kind of understand the physical ground argument against DC as a state, but don't really think it outweighs the # of people in DC. PR I don't think there's any serious argument to not extend an offer of statehood.
Click to expand...
Especially when you consider the populations of the two Dakotas is

1.5 million

yet they have 4 senators.

the combined population of DC and PR is:

4 million

Yet they have 0 senators.

Culturally, what’s different between the two Dakotas? What makes it necessary for them to have 4 voices?
 
The Thriller said:
Especially when you consider the populations of the two Dakotas is

1.5 million

yet they have 4 senators.

the combined population of DC and PR is:

4 million

Yet they have 0 senators.

Culturally, what’s different between the two Dakotas? What makes it necessary for them to have 4 voices?
Click to expand...

I'm from South Dakota, I'm well aware.

Just to note a few differences on the Dakotas for the curious: South Dakota is an ag/tourist state, while North Dakota is a oil/ag state. SD has a notably higher native population. The Black Hills in South Dakota are certainly the most interesting largescale geographic feature in either state, otherwise both are mostly prairie. I'd say North Dakota's economy is overall stronger. South Dakota has no income tax. Both have the majority of the population on the eastern side of the state. Slightly more small towns in South Dakota, more of North Dakota lives in their larger towns. Neither state has any cities to speak of, Fargo and Sioux Falls are the two largest both a bit under 250k, no other towns come close in size (Bismarck/Rapid the centers of the Western parts of the state and about 75k each). Hmm... anything notable I'm forgetting, think that's all for now.
 
I guess I’m very naive. I’ll never really understand how men so easily and willingly dishonor themselves. I’m not in their shoes, but I would like to think that, if I were, I would be concerned with being labeled a dishonorable coward by History. Sure, I’ll long be dead, but it’s my name. My name is worth something. And honor is everything. Don’t they realize that? Honor is everything. Can’t take anything with me, but I can take my good name, and I can preserve my honor. Someone like Lindsey Graham, to name but one, nah, not so much.
 
Red said:
I guess I’m very naive. I’ll never really understand how men so easily and willingly dishonor themselves. I’m not in their shoes, but I would like to think that, if I were, I would be concerned with being labeled a dishonorable coward by History. Sure, I’ll long be dead, but it’s my name. My name is worth something. And honor is everything. Don’t they realize that? Honor is everything. Can’t take anything with me, but I can take my good name, and I can preserve my honor. Someone like Lindsey Graham, to name but one, nah, not so much.
Click to expand...

Cashing in on honor is an uphill climb.

But cashing in on power and coddling gets you 40 years in the Senate.

Term limits, people - you should get two 6 year terms and out the door. Or three 4 years, whatever.

Nobody should be a lifelong policy maker.
 
Red said:
I guess I’m very naive. I’ll never really understand how men so easily and willingly dishonor themselves. I’m not in their shoes, but I would like to think that, if I were, I would be concerned with being labeled a dishonorable coward by History. Sure, I’ll long be dead, but it’s my name. My name is worth something. And honor is everything. Don’t they realize that? Honor is everything. Can’t take anything with me, but I can take my good name, and I can preserve my honor. Someone like Lindsey Graham, to name but one, nah, not so much.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top