(11-10-2016 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:34 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people. The point is to give that Black person a reasonable ability to elect someone they agree with. And yes, that person is probably going to be liberal and someone who ain't having any more of your white privilege.

And if our last President wasn't Black, he'd be able to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Only the Black President gets 3/5ths of a second term.

So Your saying a Black Liberal is the only Black person that can rep All Black People ? Your out there !

No I think that Black people shouldn't be PREVENTED from electing someone that they agree with. Having a bunch of white people tell Blacks that Tim Scott or Dr Stabby represents them is risible.

Should Asians? Jews? Native Americans? Indians?

Asians have at least one state. Native Americans should, but won't get one. Jews and South Asians? At some point the numbers get really small. I'd say if you have more than 40 million, you should have at least 2 senators that your community gets the most likely path to pick.

That prejudice and stereotyping of yours and the Democratic Party, refusing to see people as real individuals, is one of the reasons Hillary lost.

(11-10-2016 01:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:34 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So Your saying a Black Liberal is the only Black person that can rep All Black People ? Your out there !

No I think that Black people shouldn't be PREVENTED from electing someone that they agree with. Having a bunch of white people tell Blacks that Tim Scott or Dr Stabby represents them is risible.

Should Asians? Jews? Native Americans? Indians?

Asians have at least one state. Native Americans should, but won't get one. Jews and South Asians? At some point the numbers get really small. I'd say if you have more than 40 million, you should have at least 2 senators that your community gets the most likely path to pick.

That prejudice and stereotyping of yours and the Democratic Party, refusing to see people as real individuals, is one of the reasons Hillary lost.

Tim Scott represents what WHITE people think a Black Senator should be. That's why he gets little support from Blacks.

Hey.....lets not ask Blacks what THEY want...lets do it your way and PREVENT them from ever getting to choose anyone for Senate. Always gotta run it by the white people first huh?

(11-10-2016 01:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No I think that Black people shouldn't be PREVENTED from electing someone that they agree with. Having a bunch of white people tell Blacks that Tim Scott or Dr Stabby represents them is risible.

Should Asians? Jews? Native Americans? Indians?

Asians have at least one state. Native Americans should, but won't get one. Jews and South Asians? At some point the numbers get really small. I'd say if you have more than 40 million, you should have at least 2 senators that your community gets the most likely path to pick.

That prejudice and stereotyping of yours and the Democratic Party, refusing to see people as real individuals, is one of the reasons Hillary lost.

Tim Scott represents what WHITE people think a Black Senator should be. That's why he gets little support from Blacks.

Hey.....lets not ask Blacks what THEY want...lets do it your way and PREVENT them from ever getting to choose anyone for Senate. Always gotta run it by the white people first huh?

Again... not a single quantifiable complaint about Tim Scott....

Tom I'll PM you in 2018 to make sure any minority on the ballot is legit so my wife can vote for them..

(11-10-2016 01:59 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Should Asians? Jews? Native Americans? Indians?

Asians have at least one state. Native Americans should, but won't get one. Jews and South Asians? At some point the numbers get really small. I'd say if you have more than 40 million, you should have at least 2 senators that your community gets the most likely path to pick.

That prejudice and stereotyping of yours and the Democratic Party, refusing to see people as real individuals, is one of the reasons Hillary lost.

Tim Scott represents what WHITE people think a Black Senator should be. That's why he gets little support from Blacks.

Hey.....lets not ask Blacks what THEY want...lets do it your way and PREVENT them from ever getting to choose anyone for Senate. Always gotta run it by the white people first huh?

Again... not a single quantifiable complaint about Tim Scott....

Tom I'll PM you in 2018 to make sure any minority on the ballot is legit so my wife can vote for them..

So where are the Black Senators that are chosen by a largely black electorate? Oh,,,none of that happens. Because no state will ever be allowed to exist where they have a majority....Lets just let white people chose their leader for them is the plan.

(11-10-2016 01:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  All dems want to do is remove the unfair advantages the system gives the GOP.

you literally don't care about the very issue that caused the american revolution happening in the first place being inflicted on 3 million Americans.

Then they should propose a *reasonable* solution for those 3 million people instead of using DC statehood as a race dog whistle.

seriously. what is inherently wrong with DC statehood? solving it via statehood as a concept is by far the most reasonable, straight forward, and simplest way to do it.

Just what are you trying to solve? And try to give a real answer and not spout off some bull****

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

White people preventing Blacks from getting representation would be one problem with DC's status as a colony.

Taxation without representation is another.

White people aren't preventing black people from doing anything and it's not like the "taxation without representation is a secret that is sprung on people when they move to DC.

(11-10-2016 01:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:31 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  This thread and several other started in the last two days might be condensed into a new mega-thread entitled:

HOW CAN DEMOCRATS RIG THE SYSTEM FOR THEMSELVES WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR UNLIKEABLE POLICES?

We got more votes than DJT. Who is doing the rigging?

That's not rigging. It's population density and the result of there not being a republican senator up for election in CA which lead to lower turnout.

(11-10-2016 01:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Tim Scott represents what WHITE people think a Black Senator should be. That's why he gets little support from Blacks.

Hey.....lets not ask Blacks what THEY want...lets do it your way and PREVENT them from ever getting to choose anyone for Senate. Always gotta run it by the white people first huh?

You sure it isn't because he is a republican and african americans tend to vote +90% democrat? That's the sane and logical reason that Scott doesn't have large AA numbers rather than that cockamamie BS your spouting.

(11-10-2016 12:39 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  Give Maryland back its' land. The District of Columbia becomes the Capitol, White House, the Mall, the monuments, Arlington Cemetery, etc. with the only residents being the President and his/her family. Maryland already had 2 Senators and would probably gain a Congressional seat in the next census.

This makes the most sense.

So, of course, it will be an option that the "powers that be" won't even consider.

(11-10-2016 02:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Tim Scott represents what WHITE people think a Black Senator should be. That's why he gets little support from Blacks.

Hey.....lets not ask Blacks what THEY want...lets do it your way and PREVENT them from ever getting to choose anyone for Senate. Always gotta run it by the white people first huh?

You sure it isn't because he is a republican and african americans tend to vote +90% democrat? That's the sane and logical reason that Scott doesn't have large AA numbers rather than that cockamamie BS your spouting.

Basically, white people voted for Tim Scott because he was competent. Not because of his skin color, but due to his competency. Oh the horror......

(11-10-2016 01:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  However it came to be, don't ever tell us that you have a mandate. No. You don't. You lost the popular vote for Congress (both houses) and for President.

Enjoy frustrating the will of the people. Don't be surprised if they take to the streets. Because voting doesn't win for them.

There IS no popular vote for Congress OR the President, and this repeated claim that there is is ludicrous.

Enjoy misleading the people and inciting upheaval among the poorly informed (or just ne'er do wells) based on untruths.

MILLIONS of people wold have behaved differently under different rules. Maybe you win the popular by 1mm votes... maybe you lose it by 1mm.

(11-10-2016 01:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Funny how the GOP 'rigged' this system 200+ years ago.

The perspective is ridiculous

The EC was designed when there wasn't a popular vote, for a country that had 97% of the nation living in rural areas, in an era where the states identified more as separate nations than one unified nation.

There most certainly was the exact same popular vote as there is now, which is to say that there isn't a popular vote and never has been. That has nothing to do with my point that the system was apparently 'rigged' 200+ years ago.

(11-10-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  seriously. what is inherently wrong with DC statehood? solving it via statehood as a concept is by far the most reasonable, straight forward, and simplest way to do it.

DC gets a disproportionate amount of governmental based contracts/business based on being the seat of power, which essentially gives the government an additional voice in the government. Someone suggested giving the residential areas back to MD and/or VA and that would be fine... but i think it a mistake to take a district, specifically designed to be the seat of government, and give it even MORE political power. Sucks if you HAVE to live in the district, but I know of nobody who is required to do so.

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people.

he represents 1 more black people than YOU do.

Under no circumstances should DC become a state.

It is not a state for a reason.

The fact these people are unhappy is by design. You aren't supposed to want to live there.

(11-10-2016 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...51st-state

Quote:Voters in the District of Columbia passed a measure on Tuesday in favor of petitioning Congress to become a state in the union.

79 percent of voters cast votes in favor of the ballot measure, which splits the district into a residential state with a small federal district in the middle of it for government buildings and monuments, as we have reported.

The newly approved measure had four parts:

- agree that the District should be admitted to the Union as the State of New Columbia
- approve of a Constitution of the State of New Columbia to be adopted by the Council
- approve the State of New Columbia's boundaries
- agree that the State of New Columbia shall guarantee an elected representative form of government.

What do you think, any chance in hell of happening?

Not likely seeing as Congress would have to amend Article One and repeal the 23rd Amendment.

(11-10-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Dems would be wise to stop trying to manipulate and rig a system and actually work on behalf of the american voter instead of trying to screw the american voter over and calling them racists and xenophobes. I know its a novel idea, but I would seriously think about going down that route right now.

All dems want to do is remove the unfair advantages the system gives the GOP.

you literally don't care about the very issue that caused the american revolution happening in the first place being inflicted on 3 million Americans.

Then they should propose a *reasonable* solution for those 3 million people instead of using DC statehood as a race dog whistle.

seriously. what is inherently wrong with DC statehood? solving it via statehood as a concept is by far the most reasonable, straight forward, and simplest way to do it.

Because DC was never meant to be a city where the lay people lived. Only elected officials and those who work for the government. There's a reason it was originally supposed to be called "Federal City".

(11-10-2016 12:22 PM)chess Wrote:  If DC wants to be a state, petition to join Maryland.

If DC rejoins Maryland, let's pick a new district to house the federal government. The capital city should not be part of a state.

In theory, it should be Kansas City or St. Louis due to geography (Kansas City also has cities on both sides of the border, which helps as two states would give up land).

That said, I've always heard Denver would be the new capital should something happen to Washington.

(11-10-2016 04:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Under no circumstances should DC become a state.

It is not a state for a reason.

The fact these people are unhappy is by design. You aren't supposed to want to live there.

That reason being in the 1790s no one could have imagined DC would turn into one of the biggest cities in the nation.

(11-10-2016 04:19 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Dems would be wise to stop trying to manipulate and rig a system and actually work on behalf of the american voter instead of trying to screw the american voter over and calling them racists and xenophobes. I know its a novel idea, but I would seriously think about going down that route right now.

All dems want to do is remove the unfair advantages the system gives the GOP.

you literally don't care about the very issue that caused the american revolution happening in the first place being inflicted on 3 million Americans.

Then they should propose a *reasonable* solution for those 3 million people instead of using DC statehood as a race dog whistle.

seriously. what is inherently wrong with DC statehood? solving it via statehood as a concept is by far the most reasonable, straight forward, and simplest way to do it.

Because DC was never meant to be a city where the lay people lived. Only elected officials and those who work for the government. There's a reason it was originally supposed to be called "Federal City".

and we were never meant to be the biggest super power in the world on top the massive expansion in responsibilities a modern govt now has.

(11-10-2016 04:17 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...51st-state

Quote:Voters in the District of Columbia passed a measure on Tuesday in favor of petitioning Congress to become a state in the union.

79 percent of voters cast votes in favor of the ballot measure, which splits the district into a residential state with a small federal district in the middle of it for government buildings and monuments, as we have reported.

The newly approved measure had four parts:

- agree that the District should be admitted to the Union as the State of New Columbia
- approve of a Constitution of the State of New Columbia to be adopted by the Council
- approve the State of New Columbia's boundaries
- agree that the State of New Columbia shall guarantee an elected representative form of government.

What do you think, any chance in hell of happening?

Not likely seeing as Congress would have to amend Article One and repeal the 23rd Amendment.

why?

Hammy. there was no such thing as a popular vote when the EC was made. play around with google. learn. educate yourself.

By the way, cede it to Maryland, except about 2 square miles of federal district. What would be the capital of New Columbia? Not as easy of a question as you may think.

(11-10-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  seriously. what is inherently wrong with DC statehood? solving it via statehood as a concept is by far the most reasonable, straight forward, and simplest way to do it.

"Solving" presumes that there is a problem. What is this problem that you are seeking to solve?

I don't see a problem, therefore I see no need for any solution, regardless of how reasonable or straightforward or simple it might be.