Let's go back in history to settle the statehood issue for Puerto Rico and DC.

We don't need some shithole 3rd world island dragging down the mainland.

Sell that shit to someone for a Klondike bar. It only takes a minimal amount of intelligence to see what kind of massive tourist trap you could build to make bank. Yet here they are decades later living in squalor.


As for DC, you get what you vote for. A shithole surrounded by beauty.

I"ll trade Arkansas and Mississippi for DC and PR.
 
Divide California into like 4 different states.
San Fran and LA hold the entire state hostage and they own too many electoral votes.

We already have the old boundry between New Sweden and Alta California ... different histories, different peoples, different futures ...
 
Shouldn't there be minimal requirements for statehood? Like land and a population to fill it?
Washington DC is in no way fit for statehood.
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
Warshington( i know it is Washington, just the locals call it that) DC is a city, and was never supposed to be more than that, now if the prog slaves in the city want to have Senators, they can move to Maryland or Virginia.


Now for the slave fire dance...music begins..

There is no reason for DC to be a state.it is not how the founders intended it to be. By design, they felt that DC should be a seat, not a state. Of course the advocates for DC Statehood will bring up the race card for justification and entitlement. These are the same people crying about gentrification.
 
I've been curious, as to the splitting of DC into a state. Can it actually happen? I ask because the constitution says that the seat of government cannot be a state, which means the 10 mile square area cannot be part of any state.

To form Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia had to cede land. Wouldn't this mean that any land not apportioned as the seat of government would have to go back to the original states? Meaning, you couldn't form a new state, the land would have to go back to Maryland and Virginia.

Just curious.
 
I've been curious, as to the splitting of DC into a state. Can it actually happen? I ask because the constitution says that the seat of government cannot be a state, which means the 10 mile square area cannot be part of any state.

To form Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia had to cede land. Wouldn't this mean that any land not apportioned as the seat of government would have to go back to the original states? Meaning, you couldn't form a new state, the land would have to go back to Maryland and Virginia.

Just curious.

The Virginia portion was returned to the state in 1847. That is where Arlington and Alexandria Virginia are located.
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
Warshington( i know it is Washington, just the locals call it that) DC is a city, and was never supposed to be more than that, now if the prog slaves in the city want to have Senators, they can move to Maryland or Virginia.


Now for the slave fire dance...music begins..

There is no reason for DC to be a state.it is not how the founders intended it to be. By design, they felt that DC should be a seat, not a state. Of course the advocates for DC Statehood will bring up the race card for justification and entitlement. These are the same people crying about gentrification.

I do believe it will take a Constitutional amendment to fix that. Not likely to ever be passed.
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?
 
Packing the legislative branch by creating states with the sole intent of controlling political bodies is no different than changing the law to add SCOTUS judges to pack the courts in your favor - disgusting and really would herald the end to all trust in our political system. There would be no faster way to utterly demolish the country.

The Democrats may have threatened to destroy the system (whilst bitching the last 4 years that Trump was dismantling norms) but they do not have near enough power to do so even if they won both GA seats which is unlikely anyway.

No, neither of these asinine threats are going to come to fruition.
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history. I don't know... I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability and my knowledge of history.
 
Last edited:
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes your being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.
Almost the entire media machine backing them in virtually any way they can.

The entire election night coverage CNN said over and over again contrasting what 'we need' to win a state vs what 'Trump needs' to win a state. They are not even hiding the outright supplication to the left anymore. The coverage was much the same on all the other major news networks other than FOX - the one news outlet out there that is the mirror image of CNN.

Or all the social networking sites that will routinely block content that may have supported the right whilst ignoring similar content from the left in its entirety. "Hacked" materials becomes something that cannot be allowed to spread when it contains material against the left but when it contains material against the right you hear crickets. You think that is going to change when Trump leaves office? Not a chance.

Basically, the left is trying to lock down access to information. Hell, according to many democrats, Twitter and Facebook are not censoring enough and they need to start removing more content. Just content they disagree with of course...
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!
Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.
 
To simply apply the Missouri Compromise seems like a very rational solution but unfortunately there is an additional legal hoop of getting California and Virginia to agree. Article IV Section 3 says:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV - States, Citizenship, New States | The National Constitution Center
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!
Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!
 
To simply apply the Missouri Compromise seems like a very rational solution but unfortunately there is an additional legal hoop of getting California and Virginia to agree. Article IV Section 3 says:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV - States, Citizenship, New States | The National Constitution Center

I never said there wasn't.
 
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

Contrary to what liberals say in 2020

Puerto Rico has never voted in a binary vote for statehood, it is not clear a majority support statehood if it was put up for a vote (again binary, they play games with more than 2 choices on statehood because it can't seem to win)

I complain about this to liberals every time i hear it. It's just assumed they want to be a state and we are keeping them out? Republicans wouldn't be so brazenly partisan to deny statehood to puerto rico if they just had a simple vote and statehood won. Never has. That would

Cali will never give up part of the state that will turn red, almost all of them who talk about splitting cali want it laterally. The northern cali people call their new theoretical "jefferson" lol. The norcal people seem to really love the idea

Problem is other than texas most red states don't have enough people to split really.
 

Forum List

Back
Top