Splitting states

[kkt]

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

You sure about that? Amendments are "kept" by default, it takes a new amendment (which requires 3/4 the states) to repeal a previous amendment. So it only takes 13 Democrat states to block the repeal.

I know, but I trust the Democratic states' sense of fair play.

[ran4sh]

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

You sure about that? Amendments are "kept" by default, it takes a new amendment (which requires 3/4 the states) to repeal a previous amendment. So it only takes 13 Democrat states to block the repeal.

I know, but I trust the Democratic states' sense of fair play.

That makes 1 of us.

They're not losing any rights. Under my suggestion, they would not be taxed, and since they are not taxed, they cannot claim a right to federal representation.

Do you honestly think taxation is the only way in which the federal government impacts a person's life?  As long as the government impacts one's life in any way, shape, or form, no matter how small, one should have a say in how that government is run.  In other words, the right to vote and fair representation.

Using that argument, foreigners should be allowed representation in the US federal government due to how US government affects the rest of the world.

[Roadgeekteen]

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

You sure about that? Amendments are "kept" by default, it takes a new amendment (which requires 3/4 the states) to repeal a previous amendment. So it only takes 13 Democrat states to block the repeal.

I know, but I trust the Democratic states' sense of fair play.

That makes 1 of us.

They're not losing any rights. Under my suggestion, they would not be taxed, and since they are not taxed, they cannot claim a right to federal representation.

Do you honestly think taxation is the only way in which the federal government impacts a person's life?  As long as the government impacts one's life in any way, shape, or form, no matter how small, one should have a say in how that government is run.  In other words, the right to vote and fair representation.

Using that argument, foreigners should be allowed representation in the US federal government due to how US government affects the rest of the world.

Foreigners are not the same as US citizens living in the US.

[kphoger]

Mexico has three Senators (upper house) from each federal entity (31 states + Mexico City).  Of the three per federal entity, two are elected, and one is assigned from the runner-up party within that entity.  In addition, there are 32 Senators who represent the country as a whole, whose political makeup is distributed based on the vote breakdown.

Mexico has 500 Deputies (lower house).  300 of those are elected by electoral district.  The other 200 are assigned based on the vote breakdown, based on five larger-than-state electoral regions, each of which has 40 seats.

That seems kind of complicated, but I really like the idea of having a third senator from the non-majority party for each state. It would be nice having a way to guarantee that, e.g. Republicans in California and Democrats in Oklahoma have a say.

The problem is that independents and 3rd-party members still get screwed.

But that's a separate issue.  For example, the Senate in Mexico currently has members from seven political parties, plus one Independent.  The Chamber of Deputies currently has members from eight political parties, plus four Independents.

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

What do you mean by "abandon Spanish"?  Do you mean they all have to stop speaking it?  Or just that they have to stop having two official languages?

If the first, then did you know three states are currently more than 25% Spanish-speaking?  Should they lose their statehood just because of what language the people living there happen to speak?  What if one of them were to cross the 50% threshold?

If the second, then did you know three states currently have more than one official language?  Should Hawaii lose its statehood just because Hawaiian is co-official with English?  South Dakota, because Sioux?  For the first 29 years of California's statehood, all government provisions were required to be published in both Spanish and English–effectively making both languages co-official.  Do you think California shouldn't have been admitted until that section was removed?  Delaware, the first state of the Union, has no official language at all;  should it lose its statehood?

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for 400 years before being transferred to the US. Who are we to tell people to abandon the language they've been speaking for that long?

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.

[kphoger]

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.

Only inasmuch as language=race.

I believe it's discriminatory but not racist.

[GaryV]

What if in the enabling legislation to admit DC as a state, there were words to the effect that it didn't take effect until the 23rd Amendment was repealed by 3/4's of the states?

Or then would 13 Republican states block it so there weren't 2 more senators?

[Roadgeekteen]

What if in the enabling legislation to admit DC as a state, there were words to the effect that it didn't take effect until the 23rd Amendment was repealed by 3/4's of the states?

Or then would 13 Republican states block it so there weren't 2 more senators?

The republicans would block it for sure.

[empirestate]

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for 400 years before being transferred to the US. Who are we to tell people to abandon the language they've been speaking for that long?

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.

Oh, no borderline about it. If there's one thing you can say about the current discourse, it's that people have largely given up trying to hide or make excuses for this kind of viewpoint, since it has become so widely acceptable. That's...something, I guess!

And of course, let's not forget that Spanish became prevalent in the Americas for extremely racist reasons as well, so it's not as if either language is any more worthy in that respect.

Only inasmuch as language=race.

The two are very intimately tied together, indeed.

[kphoger]

Only inasmuch as language=race.

The two are very intimately tied together, indeed.

Then we should assume HB is perfectly fine with white persons speaking Spanish?

[Roadgeekteen]

Only inasmuch as language=race.

The two are very intimately tied together, indeed.

Then we should assume HB is perfectly fine with white persons speaking Spanish?

Race does not correlate with color. Would you say that it's impossible to be racist against a Jewish person?

[kphoger]

De este momento, voy a escribir en español en este hilo, solo para enojar a |hbelkins|.   

Race does not correlate with color. Would you say that it's impossible to be racist against a Jewish person?

Racism against Jews is a tricky one.  I honestly haven't solidly come down on one side of the debate.  And this is partly because, as I understand it, it's a debate within Judaism:  some Jews consider Judaism a religion, others a race/ethnicity, and others both at the same time.

[Roadgeekteen]

De este momento, voy a escribir en español en este hilo, solo para enojar a |hbelkins|.   

Race does not correlate with color. Would you say that it's impossible to be racist against a Jewish person?

Racism against Jews is a tricky one.  I honestly haven't solidly come down on one side of the debate.  And this is partly because, as I understand it, it's a debate within Judaism:  some Jews consider Judaism a religion, others a race/ethnicity, and others both at the same time.

Fine, use bigoted then.

[kphoger]

I just don't know why anyone cares what language people speak.  I at least understand people's concerns about illegal immigration, even if I don't agree with all of them, and their concerns about immigration in general–but how does someone else's language of choice affect you in any way?

[Roadgeekteen]

I just don't know why anyone cares what language people speak.  I at least understand people's concerns about illegal immigration, even if I don't agree with all of them, and their concerns about immigration in general–but how does someone else's language of choice affect you in any way?

It doesn't affect me. I'm just stating what words I would use, you can use what you want.

[kphoger]

I didn't mean you specifically.  I meant in general.

[kkt]

Hawaiian is an official language alongside English in Hawaii.  Should Hawaii never have been admitted to the U.S.?  Or is it a special dislike for Spanish?

[hbelkins]

Hawaiian is an official language alongside English in Hawaii.  Should Hawaii never have been admitted to the U.S.?  Or is it a special dislike for Spanish?

But which language is predominately used in everyday life?

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for 400 years before being transferred to the US. Who are we to tell people to abandon the language they've been speaking for that long?

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.
[/quote



I needed a good laugh today. Tell us another funny...

[kphoger]

What do you mean by "abandon Spanish"?  Do you mean they all have to stop speaking it?  Or just that they have to stop having two official languages?

But which language is predominately used in everyday life?

Well, that answered that.

I'm surprised that you are in favor of the government controlling what language people choose to speak.

[Roadgeekteen]

Hawaiian is an official language alongside English in Hawaii.  Should Hawaii never have been admitted to the U.S.?  Or is it a special dislike for Spanish?

But which language is predominately used in everyday life?

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for 400 years before being transferred to the US. Who are we to tell people to abandon the language they've been speaking for that long?

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.
[/quote



I needed a good laugh today. Tell us another funny...

Who cares what language they speak? Also this isn't a joke.

[Avalanchez71]

D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

Except Canadians' entire identity model is built around "we're not Americans" .

[kphoger]

"Given" as in a gift, or as in a respiratory infection?

[Roadgeekteen]

D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

Why?

[Takumi]

D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

Except Canadians' entire identity model is built around "we're not Americans" .

It's funny because it's true.

(Cut to all of Canada both nodding and scowling.)