What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

When Adding New States Helped Republicans

skews13

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,749
Reaction score
3,141
Points
1,065
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.
 

Meathead

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
35,491
Reaction score
9,478
Points
1,330
Location
Prague, Czech Republic
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.
It ain't gonna happen snowflake.
 

Polishprince

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
29,599
Reaction score
15,607
Points
1,415
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.

If successful in this scam, the D's will rue the day.

The Republicans will take over and admit states that will support their cause. Will you say the same when the State of Southern North Dakota and Eastern Oklahoma seek admittance into the union?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,517
Reaction score
13,898
Points
2,190
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.

If successful in this scam, the D's will rue the day.

The Republicans will take over and admit states that will support their cause. Will you say the same when the State of Southern North Dakota and Eastern Oklahoma seek admittance into the union?

Actually the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon as well as upstate NY, and Central California are much better candidates for a split.
 

Meathead

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
35,491
Reaction score
9,478
Points
1,330
Location
Prague, Czech Republic
taxation without representation demands it
If so, then i guess they should kick out all the residents of DC.
The Constitution created DC. You cant just make it a state.
Good luck with an amendment, bedwetter.
DC can go back to Maryland like Arlington went back to Virginia. Then they can have their 2 senators and get back the House seat that they'll lose as people are fleeing the shithole of Baltimore.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,676
Reaction score
5,679
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
taxation without representation demands it
If so, then i guess they should kick out all the residents of DC.
The Constitution created DC. You cant just make it a state.
Good luck with an amendment, bedwetter.
The Const isn't really an impediment because they could just make the District smaller. But it'd still be a really stupid idea of the inhabitants of DC because the feds already fund mass transit, cops, roads, educ, etc. They'd lose stuff.

But the gop fainting over adding states for political advantage is hypocrisy.
 

Yarddog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
11,979
Reaction score
4,702
Points
350
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.

If successful in this scam, the D's will rue the day.

The Republicans will take over and admit states that will support their cause. Will you say the same when the State of Southern North Dakota and Eastern Oklahoma seek admittance into the union?


Yep, and 'North Eastern, West Virginia'! sort of has a nice ring to it.
 

007

Charter Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
46,890
Reaction score
17,380
Points
2,250
Location
Podunk, WI
If ANYTHING changes for Washington D.C., it should just become part of Maryland, period. We don't need a SPECK of soil in America becoming a state, purely because of the tyrannical shenanigans over one party's wet dream of one party rule.
 

Polishprince

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
29,599
Reaction score
15,607
Points
1,415
taxation without representation demands it
If so, then i guess they should kick out all the residents of DC.
The Constitution created DC. You cant just make it a state.
Good luck with an amendment, bedwetter.
The Const isn't really an impediment because they could just make the District smaller. But it'd still be a really stupid idea of the inhabitants of DC because the feds already fund mass transit, cops, roads, educ, etc. They'd lose stuff.

But the gop fainting over adding states for political advantage is hypocrisy.


The 23rd Amendment gives the federal district 3 electoral votes. So if DC is admitted, they would have 3 EV's and the rump portion of DC would also have 3 EV's, giving them 6 electoral votes in total.
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
100,621
Reaction score
29,809
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.
Democrat are desperately trying to increase their power in the Senate.
I think California needs to be split up into 3 states. North, Central, and Southern California. The Northern section should be called Pomona....the Central section should be California, and the Southern section should be called North Mexico.
 

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
7,986
Reaction score
6,821
Points
1,940
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.

But Dems are entitled to those things?
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
986
Points
893
Most of the western states after 1865 to 1912 were added to help the Republicans.

Let's add DC, PR, and Guam.
 

Pellinore

Silver Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
374
Reaction score
100
Points
90
The problem with this argument is that it falls into the same trap as "The Democrats loved slavery, the Republicans freed the slaves!" line. The people who make up the parties then aren't the same people who make them up now; the whole system has realigned three times since then (McKinley in 1896, the New Deal in the 1930s, and Civil Rights in the 1960s-1970s) and I'm pretty sure we're in the process of another one now.

Try looking at it like this instead: Which people were trying to make liberal changes to society in order to fix social problems, and which were trying to resist change in order to conserve the national culture the way it is. That will give you a much clearer picture.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
1,189
Points
938
Location
Transient
New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population
Where is that documented?

but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship.
Does that seem reasonable, or unworthy, or what?
I do not like it.

While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.
That is interesting.

Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.
What do you mean Republicans are not entitled to anything. So then neither are the Democrats.

The problem is the Democrat-controlled states are in financial straights and need Republican state moneys to survive.

Does D.C. have a state constitution at the ready that makes it legal for the representatives to be able to practice what is legal in their constitutent districts?

Does Peurto Rico have a constitution at the ready?
 
OP
skews13

skews13

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,749
Reaction score
3,141
Points
1,065
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.

But Dems are entitled to those things?

No. They're not. Republicans can run for office in DC, as well as anybody else can.
 

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
7,986
Reaction score
6,821
Points
1,940
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.

But Dems are entitled to those things?

No. They're not. Republicans can run for office in DC, as well as anybody else can.

LOL, it won't pass. We both know it. You people ALWAYS want to change the rules when they don't suit you. Every. Time.
 

beautress

Always Faithful
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
18,150
Reaction score
10,210
Points
1,295
Location
Walker County, TX
The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.


Doesn't matter who it helps. The Constitution permits it, taxation without representation demands it, and Republicans aren't entitled to anything. Not legislative control, not judicial control, not the presidency.
It's time to put the American Capitol in the center of the nation and give land that was and will always belong to the states that shared a then-central area that became a district in the nation. It would benefit all states to spend less energy overall if we put the Capitol in the center of the country. Let the mathematicians find the center most ground and put the Senate/lawmakers, the President, and the Supreme Court there but change the Pentagon to have offices in each state and fool anyone who'd take out the brain which would be quite surreptitious about where the brain was this week. 9/11 showed us that villains would thus be confused and less able to harm our fighters when stateside.
 

Pellinore

Silver Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
374
Reaction score
100
Points
90
The problem is the Democrat-controlled states are in financial straights and need Republican state moneys to survive.
That does not appear to be true.

According to this analysis by Money Geek, New Mexico receives the most federal funding (probably because of how many military bases are there), but the rest of the top 10 are conservative states. The bottom 10 is split 50-50, with Delaware (blue) received a grand total of zero.

 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top