As a resident of South Dakota, I really wish we could start talking about this "Virginia/West Virginia" situation. How are they able to fly under the radar so well?
Because West Virginia, aka Best Virginia, was formed when they seceded from traitor Virginia to remain a part of the Union so we’re cool with West Virginia
And Nukes.
We put a lot of Nuke silos in North Dakota.
If they seceded and we didn't remove them, they would probably become the #4 Nuclear power overnight.
Þey have a lot of nuclear bases
Which is why dakota reps and senators always vote against reducing þe nuclear arsenal, too many of þeir constituents would lose jobs
Puerto Rico would have a higher population than the combined
Dakotas so that makes sense to me. Hell you could throw Wyoming in, too and still have fewer people.
I mean, more than any other state, Texas acts the most like a seditionist. They have laws designed to keep Federals from interacting with the state, and even makes it difficult for them to provide aid in times of hardship.
PR and Guam would have republican representation. PR is particularly catholic/conservative. Guam is mostly military iirc. Even still, they deserve representation
Not really, the country was founded by White Men, for White Men. Lots of humans had no say or rights early in this country.
Today, the old White Men running the GOP still get their say. It hasn't changed much.
It’s more like a string… A person's life is like a length of string; one end represents birth, the other represents death. If one were to tie the ends of the string together, their life becomes a loop. Next, by balling the loop together, the days in one's life would touch one another out of sequence.
I bet you'd enjoy this article
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/khipus-inca-empire-harvard-university-colonialism
I was shooting for the "history repeats itself" cliche, and using a true detective reference, but i like the imagery you created!
I’m gonna check it out because I do enjoy all time travel theories, but my comment was actually a reference to the show Quantum Leap. Be original, not the reboot, so probably just showing my age here, lol
**[Vehicle registration plates of Washington, D.C](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Washington,_D.C)**
>The U.S. federal district of Washington, D.C., first required its residents to register their motor vehicles in 1903. Registrants provided their own license plates for display until 1907, when the district began to issue plates. As of 2022, plates are issued by the District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles (DC DMV). Front and rear plates are required for most classes of vehicles, while only rear plates are required for motorcycles and trailers.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It was a legitimate grievance of those who had power in the colonies. Not really sure I'd call it propaganda just because the concept of "representation" has liberalized a bit over the past 200 years
Exactly. PR would be ranked 32 in population if it became a state and DC would have more people than Vermont and Wyoming.
I guess this means that giving almost 4 million American citizens Senate representation is Socialism?
R's don't give a shit about "equal". They don't want people to have representation period. They want to install a dictator and probably even do away with elections entirely.
By GDP we rank higher than 14 states, despite our small population in the district proper. We also pay more federal taxes than 21 states.
The Dakota territory was split into two states to give Republicans more votes in Congress. If we undid that and let all Americans vote for a Senator Democrats would hold 54 Senate seats and Republicans just 48.
The only people who think Nazi and fascist have lost their meanings are white supremacists and authoritarians projecting fascist rhetoric who are upset at being called out for that they are. It's really not incorrect to call many of those ultra right wing organizations like the proud boys neo-Nazis, just like it's not incorrect to call Trump and his followers fascists.
People forgot who the Nazis were, and what was dangerous about fascism. The average Nazi isn't too different from anyone else, they just choose to give in and amplify xenophobia, nationalism, othering, authority, etc. They built a society that nurtured that hate. That's all it takes to make a group of people commit atrocities.
They weren't comic book villains, but that's what a lot of people think Nazi means. Of course they roll their eyes when you call a Nazi a Nazi.
Yeah, if the GOP is going to use violence to try to seize power and throw out election results, then they’ve earned the fascist and “threat to democracy” labels.
Sometimes a spade is a spade, y’know?
I remember Bush whining nonsensically about socialism. I'm not saying they aren't racist and didn't lose their minds about a black president, but bitching about "socialism" is older then Obama. Still often a racial thing, though.
The old dog whistle. Be racist without while maintaining the tiniest amount of plausible deniability. This is nothing new, in fact a Republican stratagist said the quiet part out loud in 1981.
>You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*r, n*r, n*r." By 1968, you can't say "n*r" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*r, ni*r."[30]
Republican Strategist Lee Atwater, Removed the N words, but he most definitely said them.
I ask myself this question sometimes, though. Would I support the representation of new groups of people, in the short term, if I knew those people were likely to be reliable Republican voters?
I’d like to believe I would, but I’m not positive I would. I would probably want to do it “later.”
This is the most underrated comment here. If DC and PR were conservative leaning, would the Democrats support their entry or deny it? It's purely speculative, but I'm going with a hard no because of how polarized out political parties have become. There's a reason Washington said they were bad juju
Edit: I'm not arguing for either political party here, they both suck. Under the explained ideals of American freedom, I can't believe any representative would want to say no to another proposed state of freedom embracing individuals who want to support (and be supported by) the constitution. How they vote shouldn't matter, what should matter is that they want to vote and be represented. If peurto Rico wants that, I think it's fairly in un-american to deny them
They don't really fit into either party super well. They're super religious and majority "Republicans", but also favor more progressive things and don't like trump. So it's a tossup
Well it's been done many times. Germans and Italians are just a couple of the groups that were considered not white that now are. Whiteness in America is a construct for political power. Different groups of people become white if it is politically advantageous for them to be. Hence why white Hispanics are a thing now. In the 20th century that wouldn't be a thing. It used to be if you had even a single percentage of your heritage as black, you were black.
I wish I understood their political party enough to to tell you. What I know is what I can find in research, and that is that their progressive party is currently the strongest, it wants to go statehood, and it is opposed by the Democratic party that apparently wants to keep the current status. It seems the progressive party members are kind of half red half blue.
If there are direct relations to our parties I am having problems finding their level of support.
It's hard to tell. I mean...it looks like it wills, but it's largest party is the progressive party, which apparently has a pretty even divide in it but seemed opposed to their Democratic party. I don't know. I think the fear of a shift from the balance effects both parties though
way to miss the point. which was, clearly, that a lot of people who are climbing over each other to say "give them representation" would be eerily quiet if those seats would be red seats. maybe *you* aren't that hypocritical, but a lot of people are.
which makes the whole thing less about representation and more about "i want more seats"
Puerto Rico is likely to vote Republican.
The actual analysis I've seen is that they might initially be loyal to whatever party pushed hardest for their statehood (if it ends up as a partisan issue) but long-term they're not particularly Democratic-leaning and could well lean GOP.
They're still fucking Americans, and deserve statehood immediately. The GOP is anti-democracy. If we oppose democracy in order to keep them out of power, we might beat the GOP but we won't have saved democracy.
Duh. If you didn’t catch it, I was being introspective and vulnerable. We all WANT to believe we would save somebody from a burning car, but you never know until you feel the heat.
Part of the Great Compromise was allowing small states to have equal representation in the senate as large states. This compromise was made when state lines were still being drawn, and allowed rich and powerful people the ability to make teeny tiny little states with their cronies.
That's why on the east coast we have 14 states, while on the west coast we have 3.
It's been the argument of the Conservative party since day one. Compromising with people who would kill others in order to keep slaves was a massive blunder.
Fifty states seems too many for me. Most of these states are artificial constructs made to preserve the balance of slave and free states. It did that, and then gave the former slavers undue influence over politics basically forever.
Regardless of any compromise, DC is not supposed to be a state so that the fed doesn't give a specific state preferential treatment. DC is land borrowed from a state, and if it needs to return to being part of that state instead of becoming a whole new state if we do anything at all. Considering most of DC is relatives of the most powerful people in the world, I think their interests are being very firmly represented.
The intent was for DC not to need it's own government because it was made up of civil servants who actually lives elsewhere but that is not the case and the people who live there deserve self determination. If they were being represented well the will of the people wouldn't have been denied by Congress multiple times in the last decade.
I would agree if DC itself didn't house over a million people (and they consistently vote democrat, more progressive IIRC), they could make the federal properties their own thing, and either make the residential areas their own state or give them back.
the founding fathers never anticipated DC becoming anything more than the location of the Federal Government.
you 100% could but that would be a split between Virginia and Maryland, Virginia apparently took their part of DC back already, However what districts would you assign them to?
Give as much of the residential areas that can be carved out back to Virginia and Maryland. Conservatives don't want DC to become another Democratic asset, so they don't want statehood. But what isn't being acknowledged is that Democrats 100% understand that conversion to a state benefits them politically. That's why they distinctly aren't trying to find a plan that returns DC residents to nearby states. But that would obviously be the most fair and least politically manipulative plan.
Then you think the Republicans would advocate for that, because it won't affect Virginia enough to sway it blue (I don't think), and Maryland's already deep blue.
You've clearly never been to DC lol. Most of the powerful people don't have permanent residence in DC - they are representatives of other states. Those that do live in the area don't live in DC proper. They either live in NoVA or Montgomery County.
Most of those powerful people in DC don't even have their DC residence listed as their primary residence. The majority of people actually living in the district are the regular people who make regular incomes and have a regular amount of political power (so little to none)
These are the people who are not represented, the working poor who live in Anacostia and work all of the service jobs in the district.
You're shifting the goalposts now bud. Maybe this arbitrary criteria is just a cover for your desires to continue allowing the Republicans to have a stranglehold in the undemocratic body which stupidly grants most of the power in this country to land and not people.
>Considering most of DC is relatives of the most powerful people in the world, I think their interests are being very firmly represented.
Where are you getting that from? DC is majority non-white, 45% black, has poverty rates higher than the national average.
The entire push for statehood is predicated on the fact the majority of residents *in* the city. Who are not associated with politicians. Aren't adequately represented by being governed by Congress. Most of those powerful people, live in the much wealthier DC suburbs. Mostly on the Virginia side of things. The politicians are part time residents.
> Considering most of DC is relatives of the most powerful people in the world, I think their interests are being very firmly represented.
This is absolutely false with no shred of truth. DC is home to ~5.5 million people, almost all of whom have no representation
DC isn't ever supposed to be a state. It is supposed to be neutral ground for the seat of power. The land itself was gifted/ is on loan. If anything, it should be reabsorbed by said state. Puerto Rico should be voted on via a stand alone vote. Don't marry it to DC. The historical reason for DC being DC is because they did not want the federal gov to favor or give special treatment to a hosting state.
Anyway, I hate old turtleman anyway so I'm not sure why I'm saying anything to begin with.
How about seeing if any state wants to take them in? I'm sure several smaller population states would do so to gain more congressional states. Nothing says that states have to be contiguous, else each island of Hawaii would be it's own.
Because this is a repost bot with a popular post from several years back
https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/f0ehcx/mitch_mcconnell_refusing_a_vote_to_allow_dc_and/
which itself is a popular repost from ~a year or so before that, probably adjacent to this story
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/mcconnell-representative-democracy-is-full-bore-socialism.html
I think you're missing the point. What you said explains why he would *get* a vote in the senate. But the question is, why does one guy get to decide what even *gets voted on*. The other answer ("Because the Senate is evenly divided he is co-leader.") is the reason. Though it doesn't make it right.
He represents all Republican senators though. The phrase "Mithc Mcconel won't allow..." should be read as "Senate Republicans won't allow...". Which is actually exactly how democracy works.
PR makes sense. There’s 3 million people there. DC does not because you can’t place a state government in power over the federal government. DC will have to remain the way it is
Although, globally, both systems - the federal district and the lack of such - have been successful. So, while it's a sensible argument, it is not necessarily an absolute.
>DC does not because you can’t place a state government in power over the federal government.
The few blocks that actually comprise the capital will still be a federal district. You'll just be enfranchising 700,000+ people who currently don't have representation.
Except because of the 23rd amendment, the population living within that federal district *(i.e. POTUS and fam)* would still be entitled to 3 electoral college votes. Any solution would still require a constitutional amendment to address this.
100% this. Making DC a state is a phenomenally bad idea.
Edit: I was just educated on the bill and it excludes the major federal parts of DC from statehood, is more focused on the residential and business areas. That would exclude the state from having power over the federal government, making this idea much more palatable.
If Maryland had any sympathy they could annex most of the district (leaving the federal government and whatever minimal space they need for infrastructure, with as few homes as possible)
I hear they're not interested though because all the politicians have power bases in Baltimore and don't want to compete with whoever the DC residents vote for
DC was intended as neutral ground from the beginning. Maryland donated the land for it. If DC wants statehood, it should be absorbed back into Maryland.
I thought this idea had been proposed but rejected by the Dems. Because it’s not actually about representation for people living in DC, it’s about getting more democrats in Congress.
Every single proposal I have seen (there are several) has a carveout for all of the important federal government buildings and a small amount of land surrounding/connecting them, because you are correct.
Given that is a moot issue, what is your other objection?
There would be an issue under the 23rd amendment that even if DC became a new state or absorbed into Maryland, the new federal district would have 3 electoral votes during the election. Changing an amendment nowadays sounds like a pain.
Depends on who you talk to in Puerto Rico. Some of them do and some of them don’t. Idk what the current popular opinion is, but I’ve been there a few times and it’s thought about enough to come up in conversation when I don’t bring it up.
I thought in their last vote they got a majority to agree to apply for statehood? I might be thinking of something else
Okay, so it looks like 54% voted to "change the status quo" and if that percent, 61% voted in statehood application, so a majority of the majority want it, but it isn't a majority of the area.
From talking to people on the west coast, it's not so cut and dry.
They want a more powerful presence in THEIR government.
Most simple issue would be letting ships drop goods off at their docks before touching US mainland.
at the very least the 1920 jones act needs to be removed
it makes it incredible difficult/expensive to ship things to and from continental USA and puerto rico, because shipping anything from a US port to another US port **MUST** only be done by a US made ship with 75%+ US born crew, there is a severe lack of ships meeting this requirement as often times ships hire crew in other countries at a reduced labor, or buy foreign made ships that would be manned by a mixed background crew
this is particularly why it's incredibly expensive to ship products to/from puerto rico, and why there's a huge shipping delay, transport ships must EITHER be basically all american or have a middle stop at another country first
that honestly should be the first thing done for them
It’s the same reason he’s against more people voting. He knows republicans are a dwindling group and he needs to do whatever he can to hold onto power. Instead if changing their views to pull in more people they’re moving the goalposts.
Yep. Nothing a conservative catholic population loves more than transgender issues and abortion.
You don’t understand very much about the world of you just assume that Puerto Rico would mean more Democratic Representation
When they consistently take action to limit voting hours, methods, and locations, you do start to get the full picture. Republicans only support democracy when it serves them.
they're all over this thread. DC was created to be a neutral place. not a state. it doesn't make sense to make it into a state where suddenly a state government would have power over the federal government. the land was loaned from other states anyways, so if anything were to happen, DC would be absorbed back by maryland or virginia.
PR doesn't necessarily want to become a state, the only referendum which "passed" out of many was one where the status quo wasn't even an option and many boycotted the vote out of anger over that.
are those okay?
I think you're right, with one minor point. Virginia already took their part of DC back. The part north of the Potomac was ceded by Maryland and should go back to them.
Spoke with several people in Puerto Rico about this while on my honeymoon last year, and none of them want statehood. They want independence, according to them.
Daenerys Targaryen: I know what is good. Jon Snow: What about everyone else? All the other people who think they know what's good. Daenerys Targaryen: They don't get to choose.
Those people got outvoted in the last referendum. I know the independence movement is sizeable, as it is in Texas, but the statehood movement is also sizeable and that one is both slightly bigger and much more politically feasible
The gop doesnt give a damn about democracy. They dont care about the people that elect them either. The sooner people wake the fuck up and realize this, the sooner the united states can make real progress.
DC was set up specifically not to be a state. The mistake was allowing it to turn in to more than just a place for the government to operate with limited housing for people traveling there for work.
“Okay we’ll vote without you”
This shit shouldn’t be allowed. There needs to be a law that if something brought forward, you have to vote. If something passes the house, you have to vote. Why should some old fuck I didn’t vote for be effecting this?
Except 100% that is how it works. Fighting over adding new states because they would change the balance of power between the political parties is as old as American democracy itself. It was a major contributor to the civil war.
Republicans should be cheering to allow Puerto Rico have congressional representation. It allows the people of the state to speak for them instead of the federal government. But, balance of power is such a dark cloud in DC republicans would rather lose themselves in the political forest then live up to their parties original ideology.
DC should never become a state. It was intended to be a neutral district. Honestly they should never had let people live there to begin with
I mean you can argue Democrats want to add Puerto Rico for for easier control of Congress.
And that the Republicans want to split up California for easier Control of Congress.
But supporting one, and not the other just means you are a hypocrite.
I support both.
Dc shouldn't become its own state. If anything it should become part of the state that donated it to the union. There is only one reason people want it to be its own state and not part of its original state.
Puerto Rico can become a state of they want to. Right now they don't have the same responsibilities that official states have, and their status as a territory is not some oppressive use of force but rather a choice that Puerto Rico has made themselves.
DC on the other hand is *explicitly disallowed* from becoming a state in the Constitution. It was very intentionally chosen as the capitol and was designed to be a district that was separate from other states *for the purpose of not being a state*.
This is so short sighted. It's impossible to predict how these places will be voting long term. When Hawaii and Alaska became states, everyone assumed Hawaii would be voting Republican and Alaska would be voting Democrat.
Puerto Rico has one non voting representative in Congress, a statewide elected official, she is a shoe in for Senator if Puerto Rico becomes a state. She is a Republican.
Right, I'm Puerto Rican (from US) and people don't realize how similar they are to Cubans in their affinity for the conservatism. My PR family on the east coast are all Republicans hate Hillary etc. PR is definitely NOT a shoe in for Dems if they become a state. Also, they have massive corruption issues w/i their own government so I'd rather not bring that into our system.
We shuld make DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam into states. That gives us 53, and we would thus be indivisible.
American Samoa loses again due to odd maths
[удалено]
As a resident of South Dakota, I really wish we could start talking about this "Virginia/West Virginia" situation. How are they able to fly under the radar so well?
Because West Virginia, aka Best Virginia, was formed when they seceded from traitor Virginia to remain a part of the Union so we’re cool with West Virginia
The irony being that the feds moved into Virginia and some people in West Virginia sure like the confederate flag.
Who needs two of them anyways?
I don’t even know what we do with them currently. I just think they’re there so Canada doesn’t have a beachhead.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And Nukes. We put a lot of Nuke silos in North Dakota. If they seceded and we didn't remove them, they would probably become the #4 Nuclear power overnight.
TIL North Dakota has the most America per capita in the world
Capable of supplying freedom to any corner of the world in 30 minutes or less
Yeah murdering entire tribes of indigenous peoples and then carving "graffiti" into their mountains is pretty fucking on par for 'murica.
Theodore Roosevelt National Park is the "North Dakota Badlands" and they're pretty good too, and far less visited if you don't like people.
You fool, the Dakota's ARE the beachhead Most of their residents don't even realize they are Canadian sleeper agents
Þey have a lot of nuclear bases Which is why dakota reps and senators always vote against reducing þe nuclear arsenal, too many of þeir constituents would lose jobs
Puerto Rico would have a higher population than the combined Dakotas so that makes sense to me. Hell you could throw Wyoming in, too and still have fewer people.
The only reason we have 2 was because of a republican ploy to have 4 senators instead of 2
Why have 2 Carolinas?
I think that was one of my favorite Daily Show segments from its early days. It was a piece about combining the Dakotas
East Dakota?
Let Hawaii secede to keep the balance.
You misspelled Texas
I mean, more than any other state, Texas acts the most like a seditionist. They have laws designed to keep Federals from interacting with the state, and even makes it difficult for them to provide aid in times of hardship.
I would absolutely love to let Texas secede. I wouldn't even mind a program to assist with moving costs for people who wanted to stay in the US.
Super Dakota and Virginia: Final Form.
Saul goodman would be disappointed!
*CNMI enters the chat*
Any attempt to make Guam a state would kinda have to include every Pacific island outside Hawaii.
USVI? Throw that in the mix.
Take your upvote and GTFO.
This is a prime time comment.
Welcome to America Prime.
PR and Guam would have republican representation. PR is particularly catholic/conservative. Guam is mostly military iirc. Even still, they deserve representation
Prime Democracy
We should cut loose Texas and Florida and replace them with DC and PR. Don’t even gotta change the flag.
Arrivederci, jerks!
Pretty sure one of the reasons we became our own country was because we didn't have representation.
Ironic, isn't it?
[удалено]
Not really, the country was founded by White Men, for White Men. Lots of humans had no say or rights early in this country. Today, the old White Men running the GOP still get their say. It hasn't changed much.
Almost like rain on your wedding day
Or ten thousand spoons...When all you need is a knife
…and yeah, I really do think
We dont talk about Bruno!
We also didn't want a monarchy but the R's seem to be headed that way too
time is flat circle
It’s more like a string… A person's life is like a length of string; one end represents birth, the other represents death. If one were to tie the ends of the string together, their life becomes a loop. Next, by balling the loop together, the days in one's life would touch one another out of sequence.
I bet you'd enjoy this article https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/khipus-inca-empire-harvard-university-colonialism I was shooting for the "history repeats itself" cliche, and using a true detective reference, but i like the imagery you created!
I’m gonna check it out because I do enjoy all time travel theories, but my comment was actually a reference to the show Quantum Leap. Be original, not the reboot, so probably just showing my age here, lol
haha we're both lost in a world of references be warned, the TD series has nothing to do with time travel lol but the first season is epic
That reminds me I gotta watch Quantum Leap
Have you seen our license plates? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Washington,_D.C.
**[Vehicle registration plates of Washington, D.C](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Washington,_D.C)** >The U.S. federal district of Washington, D.C., first required its residents to register their motor vehicles in 1903. Registrants provided their own license plates for display until 1907, when the district began to issue plates. As of 2022, plates are issued by the District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles (DC DMV). Front and rear plates are required for most classes of vehicles, while only rear plates are required for motorcycles and trailers. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That was propaganda. This country denied representation to vast swaths of people.
It was a legitimate grievance of those who had power in the colonies. Not really sure I'd call it propaganda just because the concept of "representation" has liberalized a bit over the past 200 years
Or as Lindsey graham calls it " the good ol days"
Specifically, he said that DC and Puerto Rico becoming states would be **socialism**. Words have no meanings anymore.
Exactly. PR would be ranked 32 in population if it became a state and DC would have more people than Vermont and Wyoming. I guess this means that giving almost 4 million American citizens Senate representation is Socialism?
"Socialism" = "People we disagree with having equal representation."
Jesus was a socialist… *Supply side Jesus* on the other hand… Edit: Thank you Squally160
*Supply side Jesus
R's don't give a shit about "equal". They don't want people to have representation period. They want to install a dictator and probably even do away with elections entirely.
By GDP we rank higher than 14 states, despite our small population in the district proper. We also pay more federal taxes than 21 states. The Dakota territory was split into two states to give Republicans more votes in Congress. If we undid that and let all Americans vote for a Senator Democrats would hold 54 Senate seats and Republicans just 48.
He knows exactly what it means. But he also knows that word will illicit just the response he needs from their death cult so he throws it in there.
Kentucky needing so much federal aid is not socialism???
Socialism, nazi, and fascist amd "threat to democracy" lost there meaning years ago
Don't forget anti-American.
Anti-american just means a real American when it's used by repubs.
The only people who think Nazi and fascist have lost their meanings are white supremacists and authoritarians projecting fascist rhetoric who are upset at being called out for that they are. It's really not incorrect to call many of those ultra right wing organizations like the proud boys neo-Nazis, just like it's not incorrect to call Trump and his followers fascists.
People forgot who the Nazis were, and what was dangerous about fascism. The average Nazi isn't too different from anyone else, they just choose to give in and amplify xenophobia, nationalism, othering, authority, etc. They built a society that nurtured that hate. That's all it takes to make a group of people commit atrocities. They weren't comic book villains, but that's what a lot of people think Nazi means. Of course they roll their eyes when you call a Nazi a Nazi.
Yeah, if the GOP is going to use violence to try to seize power and throw out election results, then they’ve earned the fascist and “threat to democracy” labels. Sometimes a spade is a spade, y’know?
Nazi and fascist have never lost their meaning. People just deny being one.
[удалено]
And the spelling of Apparently.
amazing haha. Good burn but you also misspelled Apparently
No, fascist still means the same thing. Just remember that they're projecting when they use it.
"socialist" became popular under Obama because they couldn't use the N word, so they replaced it with socialist
Now they use the word "woke" in random nonsensical ways. It's a codeword for "someone who actually gives a damn about other people's lives."
Funny how having empathy for others has become a perjorative
It's what Supply Side Jesus would have wanted.
I remember Bush whining nonsensically about socialism. I'm not saying they aren't racist and didn't lose their minds about a black president, but bitching about "socialism" is older then Obama. Still often a racial thing, though.
The old dog whistle. Be racist without while maintaining the tiniest amount of plausible deniability. This is nothing new, in fact a Republican stratagist said the quiet part out loud in 1981. >You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*r, n*r, n*r." By 1968, you can't say "n*r" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*r, ni*r."[30] Republican Strategist Lee Atwater, Removed the N words, but he most definitely said them.
I hope I get to read his obituary sooner rather than later. Old evil fucks like him don't deserve the power they have.
>"I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."
I ask myself this question sometimes, though. Would I support the representation of new groups of people, in the short term, if I knew those people were likely to be reliable Republican voters? I’d like to believe I would, but I’m not positive I would. I would probably want to do it “later.”
FWIW, there's a decent chance of that with PR. They're not exactly hyper liberal.
PR would have two senators and three representatives. I would not be surprised if the senators were split and the representatives flipped a lot.
I've heard they fall under left leaning conservative. But that's just the circles I follow.
They're socially conservative, which would color a lot of their politics.
This is the most underrated comment here. If DC and PR were conservative leaning, would the Democrats support their entry or deny it? It's purely speculative, but I'm going with a hard no because of how polarized out political parties have become. There's a reason Washington said they were bad juju Edit: I'm not arguing for either political party here, they both suck. Under the explained ideals of American freedom, I can't believe any representative would want to say no to another proposed state of freedom embracing individuals who want to support (and be supported by) the constitution. How they vote shouldn't matter, what should matter is that they want to vote and be represented. If peurto Rico wants that, I think it's fairly in un-american to deny them
Considering the Democrats aren’t considering adding American Samoa along with the others, I’m pretty sure we know what they would do.
Dumb question, but is PR actually democrat leaning?
They don't really fit into either party super well. They're super religious and majority "Republicans", but also favor more progressive things and don't like trump. So it's a tossup
[удалено]
Well it's been done many times. Germans and Italians are just a couple of the groups that were considered not white that now are. Whiteness in America is a construct for political power. Different groups of people become white if it is politically advantageous for them to be. Hence why white Hispanics are a thing now. In the 20th century that wouldn't be a thing. It used to be if you had even a single percentage of your heritage as black, you were black.
I wish I understood their political party enough to to tell you. What I know is what I can find in research, and that is that their progressive party is currently the strongest, it wants to go statehood, and it is opposed by the Democratic party that apparently wants to keep the current status. It seems the progressive party members are kind of half red half blue. If there are direct relations to our parties I am having problems finding their level of support.
PR is very purple.
From what I hear, PR is conservative leaning.
It's hard to tell. I mean...it looks like it wills, but it's largest party is the progressive party, which apparently has a pretty even divide in it but seemed opposed to their Democratic party. I don't know. I think the fear of a shift from the balance effects both parties though
Who gives a shit what their ideological lean is. These people deserve representation, period.
way to miss the point. which was, clearly, that a lot of people who are climbing over each other to say "give them representation" would be eerily quiet if those seats would be red seats. maybe *you* aren't that hypocritical, but a lot of people are. which makes the whole thing less about representation and more about "i want more seats"
I don't disagree. Unfortunately, our politicians care. I am not a fan of our politicians.
Puerto Rico is likely to vote Republican. The actual analysis I've seen is that they might initially be loyal to whatever party pushed hardest for their statehood (if it ends up as a partisan issue) but long-term they're not particularly Democratic-leaning and could well lean GOP. They're still fucking Americans, and deserve statehood immediately. The GOP is anti-democracy. If we oppose democracy in order to keep them out of power, we might beat the GOP but we won't have saved democracy.
You should support the equal representation of *everyone*.
Duh. If you didn’t catch it, I was being introspective and vulnerable. We all WANT to believe we would save somebody from a burning car, but you never know until you feel the heat.
Part of the Great Compromise was allowing small states to have equal representation in the senate as large states. This compromise was made when state lines were still being drawn, and allowed rich and powerful people the ability to make teeny tiny little states with their cronies. That's why on the east coast we have 14 states, while on the west coast we have 3. It's been the argument of the Conservative party since day one. Compromising with people who would kill others in order to keep slaves was a massive blunder.
Fifty states seems too many for me. Most of these states are artificial constructs made to preserve the balance of slave and free states. It did that, and then gave the former slavers undue influence over politics basically forever.
Regardless of any compromise, DC is not supposed to be a state so that the fed doesn't give a specific state preferential treatment. DC is land borrowed from a state, and if it needs to return to being part of that state instead of becoming a whole new state if we do anything at all. Considering most of DC is relatives of the most powerful people in the world, I think their interests are being very firmly represented.
The intent was for DC not to need it's own government because it was made up of civil servants who actually lives elsewhere but that is not the case and the people who live there deserve self determination. If they were being represented well the will of the people wouldn't have been denied by Congress multiple times in the last decade.
I would agree if DC itself didn't house over a million people (and they consistently vote democrat, more progressive IIRC), they could make the federal properties their own thing, and either make the residential areas their own state or give them back. the founding fathers never anticipated DC becoming anything more than the location of the Federal Government.
How about you allow the residents of DC to register to vote in any bordering state?
you 100% could but that would be a split between Virginia and Maryland, Virginia apparently took their part of DC back already, However what districts would you assign them to?
Give as much of the residential areas that can be carved out back to Virginia and Maryland. Conservatives don't want DC to become another Democratic asset, so they don't want statehood. But what isn't being acknowledged is that Democrats 100% understand that conversion to a state benefits them politically. That's why they distinctly aren't trying to find a plan that returns DC residents to nearby states. But that would obviously be the most fair and least politically manipulative plan.
Then you think the Republicans would advocate for that, because it won't affect Virginia enough to sway it blue (I don't think), and Maryland's already deep blue.
You've clearly never been to DC lol. Most of the powerful people don't have permanent residence in DC - they are representatives of other states. Those that do live in the area don't live in DC proper. They either live in NoVA or Montgomery County.
Most of those powerful people in DC don't even have their DC residence listed as their primary residence. The majority of people actually living in the district are the regular people who make regular incomes and have a regular amount of political power (so little to none) These are the people who are not represented, the working poor who live in Anacostia and work all of the service jobs in the district.
Then give it back to Maryland/Virginia. Nowhere else in the country does a single metro area get a dedicated senator.
Rhode Island says hello, nearly the entire state is the Providence metropolitan area.
> Rhode Island You're taking that too literally. They have 6 counties. 1,214 square miles. D.C. is only 68 square miles. Nice try.
You're shifting the goalposts now bud. Maybe this arbitrary criteria is just a cover for your desires to continue allowing the Republicans to have a stranglehold in the undemocratic body which stupidly grants most of the power in this country to land and not people.
>Considering most of DC is relatives of the most powerful people in the world, I think their interests are being very firmly represented. Where are you getting that from? DC is majority non-white, 45% black, has poverty rates higher than the national average. The entire push for statehood is predicated on the fact the majority of residents *in* the city. Who are not associated with politicians. Aren't adequately represented by being governed by Congress. Most of those powerful people, live in the much wealthier DC suburbs. Mostly on the Virginia side of things. The politicians are part time residents.
> Considering most of DC is relatives of the most powerful people in the world, I think their interests are being very firmly represented. This is absolutely false with no shred of truth. DC is home to ~5.5 million people, almost all of whom have no representation
DC's population is around 700K
When is that old as dirt POS going to fucking die
DC isn't ever supposed to be a state. It is supposed to be neutral ground for the seat of power. The land itself was gifted/ is on loan. If anything, it should be reabsorbed by said state. Puerto Rico should be voted on via a stand alone vote. Don't marry it to DC. The historical reason for DC being DC is because they did not want the federal gov to favor or give special treatment to a hosting state. Anyway, I hate old turtleman anyway so I'm not sure why I'm saying anything to begin with.
The thing is that neither Virginia or Maryland want DC. That’s the whole reason why people are asking for statehood.
How about seeing if any state wants to take them in? I'm sure several smaller population states would do so to gain more congressional states. Nothing says that states have to be contiguous, else each island of Hawaii would be it's own.
Actually, that’s pretty much how granting statehood in America has pretty much always worked.
Why the fuck does he get a say in what is brought for a vote?
Because this is a repost bot with a popular post from several years back https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/f0ehcx/mitch_mcconnell_refusing_a_vote_to_allow_dc_and/ which itself is a popular repost from ~a year or so before that, probably adjacent to this story https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/mcconnell-representative-democracy-is-full-bore-socialism.html
Well, technically as a US Senator he *is* an elected representative and thereby part of the legislative branch...
I think you're missing the point. What you said explains why he would *get* a vote in the senate. But the question is, why does one guy get to decide what even *gets voted on*. The other answer ("Because the Senate is evenly divided he is co-leader.") is the reason. Though it doesn't make it right.
He represents all Republican senators though. The phrase "Mithc Mcconel won't allow..." should be read as "Senate Republicans won't allow...". Which is actually exactly how democracy works.
Because the Senate is evenly divided he is co-leader.
He's not co leader, hes minority leader - VP is tie breaking votes as president of the Senate
PR makes sense. There’s 3 million people there. DC does not because you can’t place a state government in power over the federal government. DC will have to remain the way it is
Although, globally, both systems - the federal district and the lack of such - have been successful. So, while it's a sensible argument, it is not necessarily an absolute.
>DC does not because you can’t place a state government in power over the federal government. The few blocks that actually comprise the capital will still be a federal district. You'll just be enfranchising 700,000+ people who currently don't have representation.
Then just adopt those people into the neiboring states. The whole point of DC was to not be a state.
Except because of the 23rd amendment, the population living within that federal district *(i.e. POTUS and fam)* would still be entitled to 3 electoral college votes. Any solution would still require a constitutional amendment to address this.
100% this. Making DC a state is a phenomenally bad idea. Edit: I was just educated on the bill and it excludes the major federal parts of DC from statehood, is more focused on the residential and business areas. That would exclude the state from having power over the federal government, making this idea much more palatable.
Making DC a state is a phenomenally bad idea for republicans.
If Maryland had any sympathy they could annex most of the district (leaving the federal government and whatever minimal space they need for infrastructure, with as few homes as possible) I hear they're not interested though because all the politicians have power bases in Baltimore and don't want to compete with whoever the DC residents vote for
DC was intended as neutral ground from the beginning. Maryland donated the land for it. If DC wants statehood, it should be absorbed back into Maryland.
This is definitely the most rational idea for dc representation. There would still need to be a federal district just much smaller
I thought this idea had been proposed but rejected by the Dems. Because it’s not actually about representation for people living in DC, it’s about getting more democrats in Congress.
Every single proposal I have seen (there are several) has a carveout for all of the important federal government buildings and a small amount of land surrounding/connecting them, because you are correct. Given that is a moot issue, what is your other objection?
There would be an issue under the 23rd amendment that even if DC became a new state or absorbed into Maryland, the new federal district would have 3 electoral votes during the election. Changing an amendment nowadays sounds like a pain.
Pretty sure Puerto Rico doesn’t want to be a state anyway
Depends on who you talk to in Puerto Rico. Some of them do and some of them don’t. Idk what the current popular opinion is, but I’ve been there a few times and it’s thought about enough to come up in conversation when I don’t bring it up.
I thought in their last vote they got a majority to agree to apply for statehood? I might be thinking of something else Okay, so it looks like 54% voted to "change the status quo" and if that percent, 61% voted in statehood application, so a majority of the majority want it, but it isn't a majority of the area.
From talking to people on the west coast, it's not so cut and dry. They want a more powerful presence in THEIR government. Most simple issue would be letting ships drop goods off at their docks before touching US mainland.
at the very least the 1920 jones act needs to be removed it makes it incredible difficult/expensive to ship things to and from continental USA and puerto rico, because shipping anything from a US port to another US port **MUST** only be done by a US made ship with 75%+ US born crew, there is a severe lack of ships meeting this requirement as often times ships hire crew in other countries at a reduced labor, or buy foreign made ships that would be manned by a mixed background crew this is particularly why it's incredibly expensive to ship products to/from puerto rico, and why there's a huge shipping delay, transport ships must EITHER be basically all american or have a middle stop at another country first that honestly should be the first thing done for them
It’s the same reason he’s against more people voting. He knows republicans are a dwindling group and he needs to do whatever he can to hold onto power. Instead if changing their views to pull in more people they’re moving the goalposts.
It’s almost as if your democracy is completely broken when a senator from one of the poorest and most useless states can do this huh?
he would vote if they were to add two slave states at the same time
Yep. Nothing a conservative catholic population loves more than transgender issues and abortion. You don’t understand very much about the world of you just assume that Puerto Rico would mean more Democratic Representation
Republicans hate democracy.
When they consistently take action to limit voting hours, methods, and locations, you do start to get the full picture. Republicans only support democracy when it serves them.
There are many good valid reasons for not doing this other than the post’s title.
Go ahead. List them.
Dc could become part of Maryland.
they're all over this thread. DC was created to be a neutral place. not a state. it doesn't make sense to make it into a state where suddenly a state government would have power over the federal government. the land was loaned from other states anyways, so if anything were to happen, DC would be absorbed back by maryland or virginia. PR doesn't necessarily want to become a state, the only referendum which "passed" out of many was one where the status quo wasn't even an option and many boycotted the vote out of anger over that. are those okay?
DC doesn't deserve to be a state. Just lump them in with Virginia. It makes no sense for a city to gain statehood.
I think you're right, with one minor point. Virginia already took their part of DC back. The part north of the Potomac was ceded by Maryland and should go back to them.
Spoke with several people in Puerto Rico about this while on my honeymoon last year, and none of them want statehood. They want independence, according to them.
Daenerys Targaryen: I know what is good. Jon Snow: What about everyone else? All the other people who think they know what's good. Daenerys Targaryen: They don't get to choose.
Those people got outvoted in the last referendum. I know the independence movement is sizeable, as it is in Texas, but the statehood movement is also sizeable and that one is both slightly bigger and much more politically feasible
Its also not true - PR reliably votes republican.
Enter standard "We are a Republic not a Democracy" statement here.
The gop doesnt give a damn about democracy. They dont care about the people that elect them either. The sooner people wake the fuck up and realize this, the sooner the united states can make real progress.
Serve the interests of the citizens of this country?! Preposterous! What would my shareholders say? They have yacht payments!
DC was set up specifically not to be a state. The mistake was allowing it to turn in to more than just a place for the government to operate with limited housing for people traveling there for work.
I suppose we could divide Texas into 5 and California into 3?
“Okay we’ll vote without you” This shit shouldn’t be allowed. There needs to be a law that if something brought forward, you have to vote. If something passes the house, you have to vote. Why should some old fuck I didn’t vote for be effecting this?
Except 100% that is how it works. Fighting over adding new states because they would change the balance of power between the political parties is as old as American democracy itself. It was a major contributor to the civil war.
Republicans should be cheering to allow Puerto Rico have congressional representation. It allows the people of the state to speak for them instead of the federal government. But, balance of power is such a dark cloud in DC republicans would rather lose themselves in the political forest then live up to their parties original ideology.
DC should never become a state. It was intended to be a neutral district. Honestly they should never had let people live there to begin with I mean you can argue Democrats want to add Puerto Rico for for easier control of Congress. And that the Republicans want to split up California for easier Control of Congress. But supporting one, and not the other just means you are a hypocrite. I support both.
Dc shouldn't become its own state. If anything it should become part of the state that donated it to the union. There is only one reason people want it to be its own state and not part of its original state.
No state wants to absorb DC and DC doesn’t want to be absorbed by another state.
PR should be given its independence.
Puerto Rico can become a state of they want to. Right now they don't have the same responsibilities that official states have, and their status as a territory is not some oppressive use of force but rather a choice that Puerto Rico has made themselves. DC on the other hand is *explicitly disallowed* from becoming a state in the Constitution. It was very intentionally chosen as the capitol and was designed to be a district that was separate from other states *for the purpose of not being a state*.
Wait until you hear about the Missouri Compromise.
This is so short sighted. It's impossible to predict how these places will be voting long term. When Hawaii and Alaska became states, everyone assumed Hawaii would be voting Republican and Alaska would be voting Democrat.
Well, DC votes for Democrats at a higher percentage than anywhere else in the country. Biden got 86.75% of the vote in DC.
Puerto Rico has one non voting representative in Congress, a statewide elected official, she is a shoe in for Senator if Puerto Rico becomes a state. She is a Republican.
Right, I'm Puerto Rican (from US) and people don't realize how similar they are to Cubans in their affinity for the conservatism. My PR family on the east coast are all Republicans hate Hillary etc. PR is definitely NOT a shoe in for Dems if they become a state. Also, they have massive corruption issues w/i their own government so I'd rather not bring that into our system.
DC should not ever be a state. The whole reason it was created was so the seat of power was separate from any one state.
DC not being a state is the whole point of DC even existing...
Didn't one side pull this type of shenanigans in the 1840s and 1850s? I can't remember how that panned out.
How about DC becomes part of Maryland or Virginia? Oh wait that solution doesn't work for Democrats
Here's a novel idea: Why not ask the people of D.C.?
Or either state or DC, for that matter.