fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't wanna continue to erode norms but given what we've seen over the last few years, I'm not sure that a party that court-packed would be punished by voters. I sorta think it could happen.
"what's fair is fair" is becoming the standardI don't wanna continue to erode norms but given what we've seen over the last few years, I'm not sure that a party that court-packed would be punished by voters. I sorta think it could happen.
Why would it lead to either?Here is a friendly quote from a Google Exec:
“You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. F--K. YOU. ALL. TO. H---” wrote Dave Hogue Saturday, in the now-deleted tweet.
“I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames,” he added.
So does this lead to discipline or a promotion?
Would people now in favor of statehood for DC and PR feel it's the right thing to do if statehood meant adding 4 Republican Senators, 8 Republican House members and 7 Republican electoral college votes?No, but Court-packing is generally a bad idea.
What they should do instead is "pack" the institution that guards admission to the Court, with statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, which would likely add four Democratic Senators. Bonus- it would also add maybe 8 Dem-leaning House members and 7 Dem-leaning electoral college votes (DC already has 3, PR is roughly the size of Connecticut).
Unlike court-packing, the GOP has no obvious counter to this.
Also unlike court-packing and perhaps even more important that the power grab aspect- it's the right thing to do.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:South Utah, North Utah, East Utah, West Utah.Unlike court-packing, the GOP has no obvious counter to this.
Your turn.
I am in favor of giving statehood to territories of the US that wish to become a state and allowing independence to territories that want to be independent. DC is an interesting case separate from PR.Would people in favor of statehood for DC and PR feel it's the right thing to do if statehood meant adding 4 Republican Senators, 8 Republican House members and 7 Republican electoral college votes?No, but Court-packing is generally a bad idea.
What they should do instead is "pack" the institution that guards admission to the Court, with statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, which would likely add four Democratic Senators. Bonus- it would also add maybe 8 Dem-leaning House members and 7 Dem-leaning electoral college votes (DC already has 3, PR is roughly the size of Connecticut).
Unlike court-packing, the GOP has no obvious counter to this.
Also unlike court-packing and perhaps even more important that the power grab aspect- it's the right thing to do.
I think what he's asking is if this is something that's frowned upon or cheered at Google.Why would it lead to either?
It would still be the right thing to do but I might be a teeny bit less enthusiastic about the idea.Would people now in favor of statehood for DC and PR feel it's the right thing to do if statehood meant adding 4 Republican Senators, 8 Republican House members and 7 Republican electoral college votes?
Would the Senate, House and Electoral college votes have any impact in your opinion?I am in favor of giving statehood to territories of the US that wish to become a state and allowing independence to territories that want to be independent. DC is an interesting case separate from PR.
Thanks. Understood.It would still be the right thing to do but I might be a teeny bit less enthusiastic about the idea.
Yes, of course.Would people in favor of statehood for DC and PR feel it's the right thing to do if statehood meant adding 4 Republican Senators, 8 Republican House members and 7 Republican electoral college votes?
Yeah but their populations are tiny, relatively speaking, so that would come with its own set of complications. I think the biggest one is only like 25% of the population of our least populous state.I like thinking of what 1-2 territories we would add after DC & PR to balance things out. What do we have available on the scout team, Virgin Islands and Guam?
No, not in the least. I am more interested in making sure that these places get the protection and status of US Citizens. If we don't want them as a state we should let them be independent. But they should also contribute via taxes like all other American states. I tend to believe Puerto Rico is very much more socially conservative than myself and there is no guarantee they stay on the democrats side once they are officially a state.Would the Senate, House and Electoral college votes have any impact in your opinion?I am in favor of giving statehood to territories of the US that wish to become a state and allowing independence to territories that want to be independent. DC is an interesting case separate from PR.
To make sure I understand, you would be in favor of adding them as states and adding 4 Republican Senators, 8 Republican House members and 7 Republican electoral college votes?Yes, of course.
But the GOP has operated in such bad faith when it comes to democratic principles for a long time, and have ramped it up to 11 in recent years. So if they were looking to do this Dems could rightly demand it be paired with other measures to boost participation in democracy- automatic voter registration for all citizens, expanded funding for polling sites, a new Voting Rights Act to replace the portion of the 1965 Act that was wrongly struck down by the Court's conservatives, voting rights reinstated for all felons post-imprisonment, etc.
Of course these things should be part of the Dem platform regardless. They should appeal to any decent American who believes in the virtue of democracy.
Thanks.No, not in the least. I am more interested in making sure that these places get the protection and status of US Citizens. If we don't want them as a state we should let them be independent. But they should also contribute via taxes like all other American states. I tend to believe Puerto Rico is very much more socially conservative than myself and there is no guarantee they stay on the democrats side once they are officially a state.
Consistancy.....James Damore, Google engineer fired for writing manifesto on women's 'neuroticismWhy would it lead to either?
Adding DC and PR helps balance out the already tilted playing field against the Dems.I like thinking of what 1-2 territories we would add after DC & PR to balance things out. What do we have available on the scout team, Virgin Islands and Guam?
There are lots of women at Google. Are there lots of Trump supporters?Consistancy.....James Damore, Google engineer fired for writing manifesto on women's 'neuroticism
It was more directed at Kavanaugh supporters. And yes, I am sure there are some.There are lots of women at Google. Are there lots of Trump supporters?
I was kind of kidding but I realize it's a serious topic.Adding DC and PR helps balance out the already tilted playing field against the Dems.
Only if it's paired with a series of other measures designed to expand participation in democracy. Otherwise I'd see it as more of the same from the GOP- gaming the system and putting party over country to continue our current minority rule.To make sure I understand, you would be in favor of adding them as states and adding 4 Republican Senators, 8 Republican House members and 7 Republican electoral college votes?
I guess I'm just not convinced that someone expressing strong criticism of the GOP presents the same workplace challenges as someone expressing views that are perceived as anti-woman.It was more directed at Kavanaugh supporters. And yes, I am sure there are some.
He was fired because he works with women, and writing about how terrible they are pretty much ruins any chance of that arrangement succeeding. The executive in question doesn't work with the Republican Party. Totally different situation.Consistancy.....James Damore, Google engineer fired for writing manifesto on women's 'neuroticism
What are you talking about?I guess quoting legitimate news stories applicable to the topic is off limits.
If they all get two senators it will throw the entire thing into a gigantic cluster.I like thinking of what 1-2 territories we would add after DC & PR to balance things out. What do we have available on the scout team, Virgin Islands and Guam?
Nevermind, my bad. It was on the previous page. There were a lot of posts recently and it was more buried than I expected.What are you talking about?
I was really just kidding, there are no serious GOP alternatives to DC & PR outside the USA 50.If they all get two senators it will throw the entire thing into a gigantic cluster.
Guam has like 300 people
Why not? The Democrats were cheated out of a seat by McConnell changing the standard of rejecting judges solely due to party affiliation. If it's OK for the GOP to break the norms to get the political advantage of a majority on the Supreme Court for the next 20 years the Democrats should break the norm when they gain power for the same purpose. If in 100 years we have more Supreme Court Justices than Senators as control goes back and forth we'll just have to live with it.Basically, yeah. You don't really get to complain about the Garland seat and then in the next breath propose escalating things even further.
Silicon Valley hates the GOP!Here is a friendly quote from a Google Exec:
“You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. F--K. YOU. ALL. TO. H---” wrote Dave Hogue Saturday, in the now-deleted tweet.
“I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames,” he added.
So does this lead to discipline or a promotion?
No. I would reluctantly agree that the Democrats would be warranted in blocking Trump's nominations if they gain control of the senate, because that's what McConnell did to Obama. I do not agree that Democrats should escalate things further. That's what got us here in the first place.Why not? The Democrats were cheated out of a seat by McConnell changing the standard of rejecting judges solely due to party affiliation. If it's OK for the GOP to break the norms to get the political advantage of a majority on the Supreme Court for the next 20 years the Democrats should break the norm when they gain power for the same purpose. If in 100 years we have more Supreme Court Justices than Senators as control goes back and forth we'll just have to live with it.
The norms are broken for good. The American Justice system is now just another political branch and pretending it's something else isn't going to change that. There are many lawyers who work for it to be something better, a system that protects the rights and property of all the people not just the rich and powerful. None of these people are part of the current majority.
The majority of Supreme Court Justices at any time have been been appointed by Republicans since the Nixon Administration. Certainly the Senate system favors the GOP. Why would they favor changing a system that gives them more power even when they get fewer votes? It's not out of the goodness of their hearts.You don't see the red side wanting to expand the courts or the Senate. Those wails have come almost exclusively from the blue side.
To be clear, nobody in the GOP is advocating court-packing until tomorrow when Trump nominates Rudy Giuliani and Jeanine Pirro to be the 10th and 11th Supreme Court Justices. Then Grassley would fasttrack the confirmation process to get them done before midterms, McConnell would blame obstructionist Democrats for the Supreme Court only having nine Justices, and Trump supporters would marvel at Trump’s art for making deals.To be clear, nobody in the GOP is okay with or advocating court-packing. This idea resides entirely on the fringes of left -- it's not a mainstream idea among liberals as you can see from some of the posts on the last page.
We're already at this point and we're not returning to the way things used to be. The unwritten rules were changed by the right wingers, there's no point in the left playing by the old rules.No. I would reluctantly agree that the Democrats would be warranted in blocking Trump's nominations if they gain control of the senate, because that's what McConnell did to Obama. I do not agree that Democrats should escalate things further. That's what got us here in the first place.
I know GB, I know.To be clear, nobody in the GOP is okay with or advocating court-packing. This idea resides entirely on the fringes of left -- it's not a mainstream idea among liberals as you can see from some of the posts on the last page.
Plus then you could say Obama was right about 52 states.It would still be the right thing to do but I might be a teeny bit less enthusiastic about the idea.
Of course not. BTW 4 Senators and 8 House members would be 12 electoral votes.Would people now in favor of statehood for DC and PR feel it's the right thing to do if statehood meant adding 4 Republican Senators, 8 Republican House members and 7 Republican electoral college votes?
It was 57 if you want to be technical.Plus then you could say Obama was right about 52 states.
It can be both. In this case it is, IMO. Dems have been pushing for statehood since well before the current polarization, when the practical considerations weren't nearly as pressing. Obama switched the license plate on the White House limo to include the DC motto "taxation without representation" back in 2012, after he'd just won reeelection and the Dems had a 53/47 edge in the Senate, in response to a lobbying effort.Of course not. BTW 4 Senators and 8 House members would be 12 electoral votes.
This is just about power politics. Everyone agrees that we should be better than this but that's not reality.
The moral argument for making DC and PR states is that the people who live there are supposed to be equal citizens, entitled to representation in our federal government. Again though that's not the reason any of the politicians favor or oppose it, it's all about power politics.
52 is just to get us closer to 57.It was 57 if you want to be technical.
That's always sort of how I assumed people felt.Of course not. BTW 4 Senators and 8 House members would be 12 electoral votes.
This is just about power politics. Everyone agrees that we should be better than this but that's not reality.
The moral argument for making DC and PR states is that the people who live there are supposed to be equal citizens, entitled to representation in our federal government. Again though that's not the reason any of the politicians favor or oppose it, it's all about power politics.
I would. Political posturing is one thing, but people deserve a voice in their governments. Puerto Rico and D.C. have been treated poorly and full representation is a way to help that.Would people now in favor of statehood for DC and PR feel it's the right thing to do if statehood meant adding 4 Republican Senators, 8 Republican House members and 7 Republican electoral college votes?
I honestly don't know why geographic size would matter. As you said the population is greater than Wyoming (and Vermont, according to Wikipedia), and that's all that matters.As for D.C. it would be a comically small state geographically if not by population as I believe it has now passed Wyoming (Pity poor Wyoming). They have most of the benefits of statehood after the 23rd amendment was it. Also I believe it would take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish this for them. Finally, I sort or bought the argument in Federalist 43 or maybe it was 46 as to the essential reasons the seat of government should not be beholding to any one state. Now many of those arguments were much stronger in an agrarian, pre-industrial, pre-mass communication world, but I think they sort of still apply.