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.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
🏛️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
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?
“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?
The Commish
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
toshiba
Footballguy
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:
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.
toshiba
Footballguy
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.
I think what he's asking is if this is something that's frowned upon or cheered at Google.
It's a fair question. It's something we've talked about with our company. We have a wide range of political opinions on staff. How much those are promoted and made public is a legit question.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
It would still be the right thing to do but I might be a teeny bit less enthusiastic about the idea.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
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?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
toshiba
Footballguy
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.
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?
Consistancy.....James Damore, Google engineer fired for writing manifesto on women's 'neuroticism
Adding DC and PR helps balance out the already tilted playing field against the Dems.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
It was more directed at Kavanaugh supporters. And yes, I am sure there are some.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I was kind of kidding but I realize it's a serious topic.
DC to me is a question of taxation without representation and PR is a question of having done everything legitimately possible to be American. I'm not really sure PR wants to be a state, they sort of have the best of both worlds, though the Storm really puts that into question. I wonder if that has changed the way people feel about statehood one way or the other.
But whoever raised the issue of states splitting up raised a good point. It could trigger a wave of new state props, the GOP isn't just going to sit around while this happens, were it to.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
I'd be OK with the Dems doing it without those other measures, because given the current situation in the Senate it's a move towards addressing a serious existing problem- senators from states representing maybe 40% of the population can control the legislature. And if the situation were somehow flipped- ie if the small states were overwhelmingly blue- then I'd be OK with the GOP doing it without those other measures, as a step in the right direction.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
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.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
Righetti
Footballguy
If they all get two senators it will throw the entire thing into a gigantic cluster.
Guam has like 300 people
Nevermind, my bad. It was on the previous page. There were a lot of posts recently and it was more buried than I expected.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I was really just kidding, there are no serious GOP alternatives to DC & PR outside the USA 50.
Insomniac
Footballguy
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.
eurotrashman
Footballguy
Silicon Valley hates the GOP!
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/410457-facebook-executive-hosted-kavanaugh-confirmation-celebration
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
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.
Insomniac
Footballguy
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.
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
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.
Insomniac
Footballguy
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.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell
Unless the Democrats want to be the face in that image they better learn to stand up and fight back.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Insomniac
Footballguy
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.
squistion
Footballguy
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
Good article that covers a lot of things I've been thinking about recently, and how things could change based on changes in the court.
https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2018/10/09/massachusetts-could-benefit-from-kavanaugh-like-it-or-not
I live in CO, which is one of the high-growth, increasingly blue, states talked about in the article. We have a Gov. about to be elected on a platform that would expand state-level benefits, including health-care. I'm skeptical much of that agenda will pass but things could move in that direction if the Federal gov't reverses course on ACA at some point. The counter argument is that things will inevitably swing back at the Federal level. If I had to bet I'd put money on Democrats having the White House and Congress back in 2020, and along with that the opportunity to re-balance the courts and enact legislative protections.
I
https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2018/10/09/massachusetts-could-benefit-from-kavanaugh-like-it-or-not
I live in CO, which is one of the high-growth, increasingly blue, states talked about in the article. We have a Gov. about to be elected on a platform that would expand state-level benefits, including health-care. I'm skeptical much of that agenda will pass but things could move in that direction if the Federal gov't reverses course on ACA at some point. The counter argument is that things will inevitably swing back at the Federal level. If I had to bet I'd put money on Democrats having the White House and Congress back in 2020, and along with that the opportunity to re-balance the courts and enact legislative protections.
I
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
Also, DC already has 3 electoral college votes so they wouldn't gain any. The electoral college gain would only be PR, which is about the size of Connecticut which has 7 electoral college votes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
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.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
My understanding, and it may be wrong, is that until very recently Puerto Ricans were enjoying the benefits of being a territory but not a State. They were not required to pay Federal income Tax, and some of their GDP comes from having corporations there who enjoy the territorial status. Going back to the Treaty of Paris the idea of Statehood has been discussed, and generally rejected by narrow majorities. Only recently, the last dozen years or so has that changed, and only narrowly so, with a movement of abstainers from referendum always growing and skewing the vote, though that is their right and risk at the same time. I figure this is on the Puerto Ricans. If they want statehood they should clearly state as much. I do not oppose it In any way, I just thought it was more or less an open question.
I always thought that part of the opposition to statehood is their enjoyment of their formerly independent status, and for some, even, their association with Spain, if by force. (Of course their being ceded to us was also by force) they have a unique culture and some fear losing that to gain the representation of being a State. They may figure that as a territory they already enjoy some of the benefits of statehood, or enough of the benefits, in that we provide for them a "common defense", no small matter. Still, as I say, I would provide them all of the rights of statehood if that is their wish.
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.
I always thought that part of the opposition to statehood is their enjoyment of their formerly independent status, and for some, even, their association with Spain, if by force. (Of course their being ceded to us was also by force) they have a unique culture and some fear losing that to gain the representation of being a State. They may figure that as a territory they already enjoy some of the benefits of statehood, or enough of the benefits, in that we provide for them a "common defense", no small matter. Still, as I say, I would provide them all of the rights of statehood if that is their wish.
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.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I stand ready to be educated. We do have some history buffs and government buffs in here who likely know, or even teach or write on this stuff. For me, well the issues here are not front burner in my mind, not in the least. That certainly allows for misconceptions or failure to update old, half-remembered information.
Isn't the biggest reason for pushing for statehood is to open up more efficient ways of dealing with their crippling debt? Congress could do something about that, short of statehood, but Congress can't seemed to be bothered to provide the same effective rights as states.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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 the Constitutional issue and to some degree the other ones- most of the proposals for DC statehood would work around that by carving out a small portion of the city that contains very few homes and apartments. You could put the White House, Congress (both the Capitol and the office buildings) the Supreme Court and other federal courts, the Library of Congress along with several agencies including State and DOJ and many of the monuments within a new District fairly easily. And as you seem to acknowledge, many of the reasons for the contemplated separation are gone. And given the scale of the government that kind of delineation is now impossible anyway- the majority of federal workers in DC live in MD or VA, and some key agencies are already outside the city including DoD obviously.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Puerto Rico will never be a state. It’s made up almost entirely of poor, non-Caucasians who don’t speak English.
This will not be the reason offered publicly for not making it a state (except maybe by Trump) but it is the main reason it won’t happen.
This will not be the reason offered publicly for not making it a state (except maybe by Trump) but it is the main reason it won’t happen.
