tanqtonic
Hall of Famer
Posts: 19,140
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
|
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-09-2020 10:31 AM)mrbig Wrote: (07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote: As an initial matter, where did you come up with this list of "historical rationales for sovereigns"? Were these factors fashioned specifically for states in the USA?
By actually taking a quick look look at the record. When you bother to do that, the rationales kind of stand out rather starkly. Or, perhaps you should fire up the ol' history book, study it, then come back to us with *your* view of the historic rationales. Or not.
No need to be unnecessarily jerky (sadly, not that I expect anything else at this point). I didn't know if you pulled your list from a decent online source or if it is just something you developed on your own like Eponine in Les Miserables.
I guess analysis of an issue isnt a good thing for you. Some of us still do that when 'statehood history cheat sheet' isnt an option.
The states that have been admitted stand in one of a few buckets:
a) original 13 signatories (as sovereigns in their own right);
b) direct carve outs from states (mainly dues to a perceived difference of focus within a state) (Maine, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama)
c) formation of states from a territory or portion of a territory, the territory having a specific economic focus as evidenced by their own petitions and primary cuts at Constitutions that lent to localized sovereignty as opposed to 'governance from afar' (the majority of states)
d) formation of a state from a territory, the territory having a uniqueness in geography that lent to localized sovereignty (Hawaii, Alaska)
e) the acceptance of a state that was a sovereign unto itself (Texas, Vermont)
Yes, when I get interested in why looking for the 'list' is good; when that 'list' isnt available I actually try to ascertain from the record 'why'.
That is my cut at it.
As opposed to simply stating 'North Dakota makes no sense as a state' as a blind comment, bummer, I try to find out the underlying reason why North Dakota is a state.
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote: (07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: 1) what special or unique geographical concern does that 68.5 sq miles have as opposed to any of its nearest neighbors? (i.e. Hawaii)
I don't see any more or less unique geographical concerns for DC statehood than I do for the lines drawn throughout most of the USA, including state sovereignty lines that follows rivers and thereby divide metro areas (e.g. Kansas City, Memphis, and Omaha). I'm not sure whether "special" in your question is tied to "geographic" or whether "special" stands on its own. If it stands on its own without geographic ties, then obviously DC's historical status as not being part of Maryland or Virginia is both special and unique.
That is a lot of words to dance around the word 'no'.
That wasn't very many words at all, which you would realize if you were really reading the ole' history books you alluded to above.
Yes, asshat, I did try to read the histories. That is before making a vacuous statement like 'I dont know why North Dakota is a state'. Maybe that is a difference between you and I. Maybe not.
I guess if you want to go the churlishness route with me, that is your choice.
Quote: (07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote: (07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: 2) what special or unique industrial of economic concerns does that 68.5 sq miles have *aside* from the Federal government or ancillaries (i.e. law firms, lobbying firms, etc)? (i.e. Alaska, North Dakota, Iowa, Montana)
Aside from the federal government? Why is the federal government's presence and influence on the DC economy something we can simply ignore? DC is special and unique economically specifically because of this fact, but I don't see why this fact works against DC statehood. Also, tourism is a huge economic concern in DC, as it is in Arlington and Bethesda.
Having a the major economic interest as 'center of the Federal government' really isnt much of a fing industry.
And no, it doesnt 'work against it' -- the factors are 'does this factor lend itself to the granting of a local sovereign.'
As an example --- the prevalence of oil and localized agriculture lend a positive boost to making Oklahoma a sovereign. The prevalence of gold, banking, and foreign trade lend a positive boost to making California a state.
It can be social factors: the prevalence of a majority Mormon population lended a boost to the entrance of Nevada, along with a metric ton of mining.
Yours for DC is --- the federal Government is fing huge.
Aside from the 'business of bureaucracy', there is zero in the economic makeup of the 68.4 sq miles that engenders any real reason in that aspect. So, the rationale that either: a) DC has significant special economic issues that lend a positive boost (it doesnt); or b) wow, lets count the bureaucracy as special and unique economic interest. Kind of a bad show either way there, but I am sure you will make a go of it for the team.
I understand that you are no lover of the federal bureaucracy and all that it entails, but you also can't pretend like it doesn't exist just to make your argument stronger.
Have fun embracing 'Federal government' as the special economic reason for statehood. Sounds pretty fing stupid to me. As I would surmise it would to most.
But, you have to play the cards you are dealt, dont you?
Quote: (07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote: (07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: 4) is the 68.5 sq miles a self-governing sovereign in its own right at the present? (Vermont, Texas)
I honestly haven't done much research into this, but it seems like since the Home Rule Act was passed DC is operating at >50% sovereign, but with the knowledge that Congress could undo anything or remove all sovereign-like powers if it wanted to.
The answer, fully, is no, it is not a sovereign in its own right.
So one of the factors about whether a place that is not currently a self-governing sovereign should be a self-governing sovereign is whether the place is a self-governing sovereign?
I guess you arent familiar with the rationale why Texas was admitted directly as a state. Most people in this part of the country are somewhat familiar with that background.
And, that talk ahs been used when people have mentioned the possibility of admittance of the various portions of Canada --- since under the Canadian systems each province is already a sovereign.
I am sorry you dont understand. I guess that is one of the advantages of *actually* 'reading the historys that I alluded to.'
Quote: (07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote: (07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: The left dismisses the repatriation to Maryland, but also fails to note that if repatriated, would become the strongest and largest contingent of representation to the Maryland chambers, since it has somewhere between 15-20% more population than Baltimore, and more on the order of 30% when the already existing Maryland suburbs are included.
As for 'the needs of the Metro DC area are strange to Maryland', well, uh........ no....... they are not. I suggest you see the map and how populous the MD portion of the Metro DC area already is.
You seem to agree that if DC becomes a state, perhaps parts of Maryland and Virginia should be included in the new state? More seriously, I agree that parts of Maryland and Virginia are basically as tied to DC as they are to their own states. Which proves that DC can function as a state and that the federal government can survive with DC as a state.
The funny thing is that elsewhere I saw the solution of repatriation jokingly noted as a solution, with sarcastic comment that the progressives would build their earthworks in defense of nothing less than statehood. Funny, you have just given life to that caricature.
The key isnt whether 'land should be repatriated into a new state -- that is rather undoable'. The question is *why* there exists a special reason for such statehood. You have done an admirable rubbberman impression in sticking with the 'statehood or nothing'.
When did I ever say or suggest "statehood or nothing"? I think that option is better than what we currently have. I think a much more important question is "Do DC residents want to be part of Maryland" followed closely by "Does Maryland want DC to be part of it, or would Maryland prefer to have DC as its own state?" The answer to the question of "What do a few random conservative libertarian Texans who fear the addition of two likely democratic senators think about DC statehood?" is pretty low on the list. Incidentally, I have no idea whether DC residents want to be a state or if they are happy with the status quo. If they don't want to be a state, then I don't think statehood should be forced on them (just like I don't think they should be forced into Maryland).
At the end of the day, your factors are different than my factors. That doesn't bother me at all and it explains why we come to different conclusions. Its admirable that you seem to think your factors are the "correct" factors and the only ones that matter. Good on you.
Yep, your factors boil down to: a) poor DC city council doesnt know any one; and b) a smidgeon of air attempts that have zero relation as to the classic issues of why an area is deemed a sovereign state. And some 'Sharpie' rants about previous borders.
As for the 'correct' factors, they have seemingly worked pretty well for 220 years at this point. Funny that. I would surmise that they are not the 'correct' factors simply because they tilt against your predetermined point of view on the matter.
I mean, seriously, you have now essentially argued that 'Federal government' is an industry that needs its own special advocacy in.... get this now..... the Federal government. I really do wish there was a head slap emoji.
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2020 12:36 PM by tanqtonic.)
|
|