Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. .... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. |
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On 10/6/20 1:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. ... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. Sorry, but I don't accept your posit that a federal district cannot be within a state. Nor do I accept your Spanish-American War rationale. -- Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! |
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:00:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 10/6/20 1:50 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. ... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. Sorry, but I don't accept your posit that a federal district cannot be within a state. The federal district is a separate entity under control of the federal government. Art 1 Sec 8 (17). It was ceded by the state, in this case Maryland. The Virginia part was returned to them before the Civil War and some of the rest could easily be returned to Maryland, maintaining the federal district. There is no need to make a 55 square mile state to give those people representation. Nor do I accept your Spanish-American War rationale. Do you deny it was a spoil of that war? Our main interest there was military, just like Guam, Cuba and the Philippine Islands. We kept Guam because of it's military value. We let the Philippines and all but a small base on Cuba go. We could let Puerto Rico go too, there is no compelling reason for the US to keep them or to make them a state. The democrats only want this because they assume they would all be democrats and because it would water down the power of other red states. As I said, this will be DOA in the senate. It is still unclear whether the Puerto Ricans even want it. |
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On 10/6/20 5:51 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:00:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 1:50 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. ... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. Sorry, but I don't accept your posit that a federal district cannot be within a state. The federal district is a separate entity under control of the federal government. Art 1 Sec 8 (17). It was ceded by the state, in this case Maryland. The Virginia part was returned to them before the Civil War and some of the rest could easily be returned to Maryland, maintaining the federal district. There is no need to make a 55 square mile state to give those people representation. Nor do I accept your Spanish-American War rationale. Do you deny it was a spoil of that war? Our main interest there was military, just like Guam, Cuba and the Philippine Islands. We kept Guam because of it's military value. We let the Philippines and all but a small base on Cuba go. We could let Puerto Rico go too, there is no compelling reason for the US to keep them or to make them a state. The democrats only want this because they assume they would all be democrats and because it would water down the power of other red states. As I said, this will be DOA in the senate. It is still unclear whether the Puerto Ricans even want it. There's nothing to prevent the federal district in the city to pay the new state what is needed to make it self-sustaining. The new state of Columbia should have two full-fledged U.S. Senators and one full-fledged U.S. Representative. As for PR, a serious move in the Senate to grant it statehood would take place after the Repubs lose control of it. -- Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! |
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:02:34 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 10/6/20 5:51 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:00:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 1:50 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. ... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. Sorry, but I don't accept your posit that a federal district cannot be within a state. The federal district is a separate entity under control of the federal government. Art 1 Sec 8 (17). It was ceded by the state, in this case Maryland. The Virginia part was returned to them before the Civil War and some of the rest could easily be returned to Maryland, maintaining the federal district. There is no need to make a 55 square mile state to give those people representation. Nor do I accept your Spanish-American War rationale. Do you deny it was a spoil of that war? Our main interest there was military, just like Guam, Cuba and the Philippine Islands. We kept Guam because of it's military value. We let the Philippines and all but a small base on Cuba go. We could let Puerto Rico go too, there is no compelling reason for the US to keep them or to make them a state. The democrats only want this because they assume they would all be democrats and because it would water down the power of other red states. As I said, this will be DOA in the senate. It is still unclear whether the Puerto Ricans even want it. There's nothing to prevent the federal district in the city to pay the new state what is needed to make it self-sustaining. The new state of Columbia should have two full-fledged U.S. Senators and one full-fledged U.S. Representative. As for PR, a serious move in the Senate to grant it statehood would take place after the Repubs lose control of it. I understand this is the lefties dream but I think we are farther from it than a few Senate seats away. |
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On 10/6/20 9:20 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:02:34 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 5:51 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:00:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 1:50 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. ... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. Sorry, but I don't accept your posit that a federal district cannot be within a state. The federal district is a separate entity under control of the federal government. Art 1 Sec 8 (17). It was ceded by the state, in this case Maryland. The Virginia part was returned to them before the Civil War and some of the rest could easily be returned to Maryland, maintaining the federal district. There is no need to make a 55 square mile state to give those people representation. Nor do I accept your Spanish-American War rationale. Do you deny it was a spoil of that war? Our main interest there was military, just like Guam, Cuba and the Philippine Islands. We kept Guam because of it's military value. We let the Philippines and all but a small base on Cuba go. We could let Puerto Rico go too, there is no compelling reason for the US to keep them or to make them a state. The democrats only want this because they assume they would all be democrats and because it would water down the power of other red states. As I said, this will be DOA in the senate. It is still unclear whether the Puerto Ricans even want it. There's nothing to prevent the federal district in the city to pay the new state what is needed to make it self-sustaining. The new state of Columbia should have two full-fledged U.S. Senators and one full-fledged U.S. Representative. As for PR, a serious move in the Senate to grant it statehood would take place after the Repubs lose control of it. I understand this is the lefties dream but I think we are farther from it than a few Senate seats away. Congress has the power to grant statehood and the POTUS has the power to sign the Bill approving it. The District could become a state in Biden's first term if the Dems take the Senate. PR could be granted statehood during the first term of President Harris. -- Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! |
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 05:15:39 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 10/6/20 9:20 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:02:34 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 5:51 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:00:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 1:50 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. ... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. Sorry, but I don't accept your posit that a federal district cannot be within a state. The federal district is a separate entity under control of the federal government. Art 1 Sec 8 (17). It was ceded by the state, in this case Maryland. The Virginia part was returned to them before the Civil War and some of the rest could easily be returned to Maryland, maintaining the federal district. There is no need to make a 55 square mile state to give those people representation. Nor do I accept your Spanish-American War rationale. Do you deny it was a spoil of that war? Our main interest there was military, just like Guam, Cuba and the Philippine Islands. We kept Guam because of it's military value. We let the Philippines and all but a small base on Cuba go. We could let Puerto Rico go too, there is no compelling reason for the US to keep them or to make them a state. The democrats only want this because they assume they would all be democrats and because it would water down the power of other red states. As I said, this will be DOA in the senate. It is still unclear whether the Puerto Ricans even want it. There's nothing to prevent the federal district in the city to pay the new state what is needed to make it self-sustaining. The new state of Columbia should have two full-fledged U.S. Senators and one full-fledged U.S. Representative. As for PR, a serious move in the Senate to grant it statehood would take place after the Repubs lose control of it. I understand this is the lefties dream but I think we are farther from it than a few Senate seats away. Congress has the power to grant statehood and the POTUS has the power to sign the Bill approving it. The District could become a state in Biden's first term if the Dems take the Senate. PR could be granted statehood during the first term of President Harris. One senator can hold up the vote and 41 can stop the bill cold. I also think if people actually understand the ramifications of statehood for either of them they would say no. I understand this is just a way democrats think they can increase their power but I would not be so sure about Puerto Rico. There seem to be plenty of Catholics there who would toss Roe and that seems to be your litmus test.. |
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On 10/7/20 9:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 05:15:39 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 9:20 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:02:34 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 5:51 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:00:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 1:50 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. ... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. Sorry, but I don't accept your posit that a federal district cannot be within a state. The federal district is a separate entity under control of the federal government. Art 1 Sec 8 (17). It was ceded by the state, in this case Maryland. The Virginia part was returned to them before the Civil War and some of the rest could easily be returned to Maryland, maintaining the federal district. There is no need to make a 55 square mile state to give those people representation. Nor do I accept your Spanish-American War rationale. Do you deny it was a spoil of that war? Our main interest there was military, just like Guam, Cuba and the Philippine Islands. We kept Guam because of it's military value. We let the Philippines and all but a small base on Cuba go. We could let Puerto Rico go too, there is no compelling reason for the US to keep them or to make them a state. The democrats only want this because they assume they would all be democrats and because it would water down the power of other red states. As I said, this will be DOA in the senate. It is still unclear whether the Puerto Ricans even want it. There's nothing to prevent the federal district in the city to pay the new state what is needed to make it self-sustaining. The new state of Columbia should have two full-fledged U.S. Senators and one full-fledged U.S. Representative. As for PR, a serious move in the Senate to grant it statehood would take place after the Repubs lose control of it. I understand this is the lefties dream but I think we are farther from it than a few Senate seats away. Congress has the power to grant statehood and the POTUS has the power to sign the Bill approving it. The District could become a state in Biden's first term if the Dems take the Senate. PR could be granted statehood during the first term of President Harris. One senator can hold up the vote and 41 can stop the bill cold. I also think if people actually understand the ramifications of statehood for either of them they would say no. I understand this is just a way democrats think they can increase their power but I would not be so sure about Puerto Rico. There seem to be plenty of Catholics there who would toss Roe and that seems to be your litmus test.. Gee, what's the ramification, other than adjusting the flag? Good business for those Chinese flag manufacturers, right? Wait, you want a religious test for statehood? Heh heh. -- Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! |
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Back for the holiday season
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:21:04 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 10/7/20 9:54 AM, wrote: On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 05:15:39 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 9:20 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:02:34 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 5:51 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:00:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 1:50 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:25:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/6/20 12:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:50:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/5/20 11:36 PM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico! DC should just be absorbed back into Maryland like the missing part of the diamond went to Virginia. Just carve out the federal triangle to fulfill the constitutional requirement for a federal district. (Art 1 Sec 8 (17)) It used to be that Maryland didn't want them but now the slums are creeping over the DC line into PG and near in Montgomery anyway. A lot of money has moved back into DC. Montgomery would certainly like to take everything West of the park. PG would be the tossup. North East seems to be Gentrifying and it was always fairly nice, but "Souf ese", not so much. (When my Ex had to decide which house to sell, the one in Clinton or the one she grew up in on So Dakota ave, the S.D. ave house was worth more) Puerto Rico is a whole different thing. I am not sure enough Senators would ratify that to make it happen. That is just a black hole for federal dollars and making it a state will not change that. The population there seems to vacillate back and forth every decade or two about whether they want to be a state, stay a territory or they want out completely. In 67 it was an overwhelming No vote for statehood. In 1998 it was only 46% who wanted statehood, the rest wanted something else. In 2012 61% wanted it and in 2017 77% of the people did not care enough to even vote on it. To be pragmatic, I am not sure what is in it for the US. We don't need that as a refueling spot or forward base into the South Atlantic anymore and they really hate us using the area around there for military exercises. It's a matter of what is in it for the U.S. citizens who live in D.C. and Puerto Rico. D.C. has more citizens than what, four U.S. states, and PR would rank about 30th in population. All basically disenfranchised. I already said, DC could fairly easily absorbed into Maryland. Then they would raise the power of Maryland and be "franchised". I also do not feel the people of PR are necessarily entitled to be a state. How about Guam and Samoa? We actually have more national (military) interest there. What's wrong with DC statehood? The possibility of two Democratic U.S. Senators? I understand that is your incentive but it makes more sense to just absorb them into Maryland. We are still constitutionally required to have a federal district tho. Once you separate out the district from your new state, it is questionable that it actually has ability to fund itself. And when did national military interest become the criteria for statehood? It was the reason why we ended up with Puerto Rico in the first place after the Spanish American War. Virtually all of our territories were taken in a war and kept for strategic reasons. There are 3+ million disenfranchised U.S. citizens in PR. ... and the last time they were given the chance to vote on a referendum, 2.3 million of them didn't care enough to show up. I understand you want to add 2 Senators and some EC votes but that is not a valid reason to add this liability to the US tax payers. There is actually no guarantee that PR would be a blue state anyway. Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative than you would like. Sorry, but I don't accept your posit that a federal district cannot be within a state. The federal district is a separate entity under control of the federal government. Art 1 Sec 8 (17). It was ceded by the state, in this case Maryland. The Virginia part was returned to them before the Civil War and some of the rest could easily be returned to Maryland, maintaining the federal district. There is no need to make a 55 square mile state to give those people representation. Nor do I accept your Spanish-American War rationale. Do you deny it was a spoil of that war? Our main interest there was military, just like Guam, Cuba and the Philippine Islands. We kept Guam because of it's military value. We let the Philippines and all but a small base on Cuba go. We could let Puerto Rico go too, there is no compelling reason for the US to keep them or to make them a state. The democrats only want this because they assume they would all be democrats and because it would water down the power of other red states. As I said, this will be DOA in the senate. It is still unclear whether the Puerto Ricans even want it. There's nothing to prevent the federal district in the city to pay the new state what is needed to make it self-sustaining. The new state of Columbia should have two full-fledged U.S. Senators and one full-fledged U.S. Representative. As for PR, a serious move in the Senate to grant it statehood would take place after the Repubs lose control of it. I understand this is the lefties dream but I think we are farther from it than a few Senate seats away. Congress has the power to grant statehood and the POTUS has the power to sign the Bill approving it. The District could become a state in Biden's first term if the Dems take the Senate. PR could be granted statehood during the first term of President Harris. One senator can hold up the vote and 41 can stop the bill cold. I also think if people actually understand the ramifications of statehood for either of them they would say no. I understand this is just a way democrats think they can increase their power but I would not be so sure about Puerto Rico. There seem to be plenty of Catholics there who would toss Roe and that seems to be your litmus test.. Gee, what's the ramification, other than adjusting the flag? Good business for those Chinese flag manufacturers, right? Wait, you want a religious test for statehood? Heh heh. First is the house members would get shuffled, If PR and DC gets reps, somebody loses theirs. The total number is fixed at 435. DC might actually end up getting less federal money as a state. Stuff like that. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Happy holiday season | General | |||
Have a great holiday season. | ASA | |||
Have a great holiday season. | ASA | |||
Have a great holiday season. | ASA | |||
Have a great holiday season. | ASA |