US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html
Nothing new apparently.
---The history of California, admitted to the Union on Sept. 9, 1850, has been marked by more than 200 attempts to either reconfigure its boundaries, split it into pieces or even have the state secede and become an independent country. The last three-state proposal, crafted by a Butte County legislator, failed in the state Capitol in 1993.
A publicized effort by activists to have California secede from the United States, branded the ‘Calexit’ proposal, continues to be bandied about for the ballot in 2020.---
there are no good republicans
The power structure of the Democratic Party continues to steer candidates away from Single Payer.
The Dems are going to throw this away right?
The mid terms ? Hard to tell this early out.
Yeah the mid terms. I was hoping they would try and reconcile with the "Bernie base" but looks like they are still going to go with establishment policies and not the popular ones. Although they have done well in most elections since Trump, so maybe am just getting needlessly nervous. It's just that I was hoping the Dems would do everything to get back voters who did not vote for them because of Hillary/Bernie.
They have a pretty good chance of taking the house and and a slim chance at the Senate. Even if they just take the house, it will put the brakes on any further Trump legislation during his term, as well as act on a check on for the rest of the Mueller investigation. The Dems biggest problem is that the power structure of the party is still being controlled by establishment types at a time when base sentiment is drifting towards the progressive side. As a result, they are split and don't have a grand bargain they can pitch the country, which will (imo) hurt them going forward. They are going to need an Obama like figure to emerge between now and next summer to galvanize both factions, otherwise Trump may just pull off another win.
What the hell is this guy on?
Yeah that's what worries me. Hopefully they see sense by November, or at least by 2020. Am not sure the world can handle another 4 years of Trump.
I don't know but i'd quite like my flat to be it's own state, already thinking about all the possibilities Abizzzonia would offer. Tax free booze for starters.
That's actually one of his least bad takes. Why not create more states to enact progressive policies and more equal representation?
The thing is... there are rules about making new states.
Sure, making more would be a swell idea, but it isn’t like what he says in those tweets at all.
Sure, making more would be a swell idea, but it isn’t like what he says in those tweets at all.
There are also rules on dogs not being congressman, but once we have those additional 151 states...
I don't think this person should be taken seriously.
Edit: This person being the person who's tweets were quoted earlier, not @Carolina Red
So I looked it up and what I could find was this:
Are there any more rules? Because then I understand why he chose the example of DC.
votes have disproportionate power due to states voting and not people
this prevents progressive reforms
in order to create a new state, all you need is the territory wanting to join and congress passing a law
the rules are more complicated when you create a state from existing states, but dc is not a state so they dont apply here
so congress could create an infinite number of states from dc and puero rico and guam etc
once they create enough states and seat enough of those senators they have the power to change almost everything in the constituion
the only thing they cannot change is the part about how each state gets equal representation in congress
so since this guy sucks and says things in stupid ways it sounds ridiculous. but his point is really that something written by rich white slaveowners 200 years ago shouldnt stand in the way of making a government that makes its citizens lives better. and hes right
Agreed
Traditionally, a population requirement has existed to begin the statehood process. This was established by the Northwest Ordinance and was carried on throughout the admission of all US states after the first 13, as they were already in.
The prospective state would also be required to form a constitutional convention and draft a state constitution. It would also have to prove that it has the population (as state above) and resources available to support itself and it’s share of the federal government.
That’s in addition to the already existing state or federal district having to also vote to agree to do this with the land.
DC specifically raises several problems arising from how big DC is supposed to be, the fact that there’s already an unresolved constitutional issue regarding the land that Virginia received back from DC post Civil War that would be reopened, the fact that Maryland didn’t cede the land for the use as a state and how that relates to the previous point about Virginia, the possibility that the 23rd Amendment would need to be repealed, etc.
Last edited:
But those new states would need congressman of their own, right? Why would individual members of congress vote to artificially decrease their proportional voice in congress? It would be voting against their own interest (even in a stitch up), so that isn't going to happen.
Also the constitution grants congress "exclusive jurisdiction over the District in 'all cases whatsoever'". (District of Columbia). Wouldn't making new states out of it therefore be unconstitutional, as they are limiting that jurisdiction? (Puerto Rico and Guam could be a different story).
100% Agree with this.
they would do so in order to enact their agenda. this whole scenario assumes democratic control so they democrats would approve dc statehood in order to add more democrats and eventually get them a 3/4 majority.
It is definitely a legitimate constitutional issue.
Massive strategic error IMO.
Democrat candidates, even ones that are actual moderates will be painted as far left, socialists, unAmerican and much worse on Twitter and elsewhere just for criticizing Trump. Look at how they are going after even Republicans.
The only people that want a Trump-lite party are the Wall Street Democrats and PI trial lawyers and defense attorneys that profit from the current mixture. Sure they have a lot of money but not a lot of numbers.
So there is really no point of leverage to be gained from trying to be Republican-lite corporate Democrats anymore.
Anyone not supporting the Trump agenda completely is already going to be branded the far-left and Antifa by the hannity-rush-fox media.
So they gain absolutely nothing by cowering and trying to kow tow to far right opinion makers. They should be championing universal healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. They should be showing some resolve and backbone that so far is only being demonstrated by local politicians.
They seem to forget to Obama campaigned on universal healthcare in 2008 and it was a winner. Only after he was elected did it become the HMO edited ACA. But Obama won his first election championing the idea of universal healthcare.
If the DNC keeps on this path, they are going to lose again to Trump and they are going to deserve to lose because they continue to fail to provide a functional alternative
The urgency in the lead up to the mid terms is not as intense as it will be in 2020, since even if the Dems retake Congress (unlikely in the Senate) then they still won't be able to pass any legislation since we will still be in gridlock. They need to do a better job of getting a strong presidential candidate for 2020 who can sell it as medicare for all in 2019 and 2020. That will give the current positive polling sentiment a bit longer to settle in and the Dems will then be prepared for Nov 2020. I get the impression that this is similar to gay marriage in 2008, where the likes of Obama and Biden didn't want to openly come out for it because they feared a backlash among independents. Then, when the polling turned decisively in favor of GM, both immediately came out in favor of it. Single Payer / Mediacare of All could wind up being a similar situation imo.
If california gets split into different states, students who move from LA to say UC Berkeley will have to pay out of state tuition?
Honestly, this is almost irrelevant, they get called that regardless. Realistically, the mainstream of the Democrat Party isn't even on the left side of the political spectrum, and yet conservatives and conservative talking heads call them socialists, and even communist at their most hysterical.
The Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner, since they tend to argue on a factual basis, while the Conservatives don't necessarily need to, since they can say "nuh-uh, you're a socialist" and a significant part of their base will say "I KNEW IT".
I don't really know what the answer here is. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to show that the Democrats are absolutely not socialist, are not even on the left. It doesn't matter. Republicans can say "socialist" or "socialism" and their base will believe it, because they want to believe it, because they already believe it. It's almost hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
"Single Payer" is, imo, very bad marketing. Its a confusing term that doesn't really communicate what it even is within the term itself. It just begs too many questions to be an efficient phrase. So in that narrow sense I agree about avoiding that term. But the issue should not be avoided. That is an error for me. I much prefer universal healthcare as a term. Medicare for all is decent.
But just like with the election 2016 I think polls only have very limited use and shouldn't be relied upon too much. This is exactly the type of issue that polling can't reflect people's opinion. Not everything can reduced into a single "bias neutral" question that is answered by some reductive multiple-choice answer.
It requires focus groups and in-depth discussions to really understand people's nuanced and more complex views. Otherwise they just misinterpret their shallow data gathering.
Yeah I agree with all this.
Its why I think they should go for universal healthcare, point out how it works more efficiently in places like Australia and focus on getting their own base out to vote and try to flip the depressed former manufacturing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan.
Combine a Bernie type with a Biden type and attack from both angles with the same message.
The answer is to stop trying to win over Republicans and start trying to win over the disaffected non voters who fecking hate Republicans but have been ignored by Democrats for decades.
The bloke in the grey suit looks like some kind of evil rabbit character from a twilight zone movie.
The real home run for the Dems would be to adopt a policy platform that the generates strong base enthusiasm, then sell that to as broad a swath of the political center (ie Independents) as possible. That way they get strong base turnout as well as strong independent support.
How is this any surprise? Why would a person on MINIMUM wage expect to live in comfort?
Do they still all go Dem if it splits?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-immigrant-families/?utm_term=.eceac51aa476
Nauseating to hear Sessions quote scripture so cavalierly...
Nauseating to hear Sessions quote scripture so cavalierly...
2 do for certain, Southern California would be much closer. Obama would have won it by 0.6% in 2012 though Clinton would have won by nearly 10% in 2016 which might be down to just how much people in California hated Trump. A better Republican candidate would have a genuine chance at winning that new state.
In that case, that's a very poor split, it should be done so that the Dems still win it at a canter.
It needs to get through Congress and the President if this passes so I guess that's the incentive for the GOP to not throw a hissy fit. They get something like 18 new Electoral College votes to fight for while the Dems likely get a whole bunch more Senators.In that case, that's a very poor split, it should be done so that the Dems still win it at a canter.
Who am I kidding, this could pass with 99% of the vote and the GOP would still oppose it.