Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #2761
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-09-2020 03:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-09-2020 11:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  This is rough, but bear with me. Or bare with me if you want to wait until the 13th. DC is unique and I think it is either disingenuous or intellectually lazy to pretend like it isn't.
1 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents ever been governed by a state government or state-like government?
2 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents every been residents of a neighboring state?
3 - does Congress always have the best interests of DC residents in mind when it governs DC?
4 - are DC residents represented in Congress in a way that makes Congressional members responsive to the concerns of DC residents?
5 - should DC residents have a state-like government or be part of a state government that they elect?
6 - should DC residents get to choose whether they prefer the status quo, whether they want their own state government, or whether they want to join Maryland?
To me, the answers for 1-4 appear to be "no" so the answers to 5 & 6 are "yes". Congress doesn't represent DC or DC residents, it represents the whole country. DC residents don't have, but deserve to have, a state-like government that they elect (or have some part in electing). Thus, DC residents should have the option of keeping or rejecting the status quo. If they want to keep the status quo, statehood or repatriation should not be forced on them. If they reject the status quo, they should have the option to form their own state or join a neighboring state. If they prefer to join a neighboring state, both that neighboring state and Congress must approve the decision. If they prefer to form their own state, it must be approved by Congress.

I'd say no, no, no, no, no, no. DC is a unique situation.

I would say that effectively, the answer right now to #1 is yes. For local matters, Home Rule have had de facto local rule for the most part since 1973. I fail to see how another state level is needed for a single city aside from a city council and mayor.

As for #3, I would say denote exactly *how* Congress has overseen and 'ruled' DC since 1973. I would say I would expect it to be rather far from 'rule by fiat'. Based on the level of non-interference for the most part (see the response to #5 below), this question is really a non-sequitor --- Congress for the most part has downloaded much of the responsibility to the city government itself already.

All in all I can find only five instances that Congress blocked any city legislation, as it has the power to do.

As for #5, they already have effectively that power of a state government. Remember, the area being talked about is less area than a big city, and roughly the population of El Paso. There really is no need for a second layer of state administration ---- the city administration model by itself does fairly good for 68.3 sq miles and the population of El Paso.

And as opposed to the slant of the questions, there is popular selection of mayor and the rest of the city administration -- they are free to pick whomever they wish (even if it is a convicted crack dude called Marion Berry), and amazingly low interference from Congressional oversight on top of that.

The call for another level of government for a population of approximately the population of El Paso and an area of less than 1/3 the area of El Paso seems to be swinging at wiffle balls here.
07-09-2020 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #2762
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-09-2020 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-09-2020 03:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-09-2020 11:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  This is rough, but bear with me. Or bare with me if you want to wait until the 13th. DC is unique and I think it is either disingenuous or intellectually lazy to pretend like it isn't.
1 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents ever been governed by a state government or state-like government?
2 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents every been residents of a neighboring state?
3 - does Congress always have the best interests of DC residents in mind when it governs DC?
4 - are DC residents represented in Congress in a way that makes Congressional members responsive to the concerns of DC residents?
5 - should DC residents have a state-like government or be part of a state government that they elect?
6 - should DC residents get to choose whether they prefer the status quo, whether they want their own state government, or whether they want to join Maryland?
To me, the answers for 1-4 appear to be "no" so the answers to 5 & 6 are "yes". Congress doesn't represent DC or DC residents, it represents the whole country. DC residents don't have, but deserve to have, a state-like government that they elect (or have some part in electing). Thus, DC residents should have the option of keeping or rejecting the status quo. If they want to keep the status quo, statehood or repatriation should not be forced on them. If they reject the status quo, they should have the option to form their own state or join a neighboring state. If they prefer to join a neighboring state, both that neighboring state and Congress must approve the decision. If they prefer to form their own state, it must be approved by Congress.

I'd say no, no, no, no, no, no. DC is a unique situation.

I would say that effectively, the answer right now to #1 is yes. For local matters, Home Rule have had de facto local rule for the most part since 1973. I fail to see how another state level is needed for a single city aside from a city council and mayor.

As for #3, I would say denote exactly *how* Congress has overseen and 'ruled' DC since 1973. I would say I would expect it to be rather far from 'rule by fiat'. Based on the level of non-interference for the most part (see the response to #5 below), this question is really a non-sequitor --- Congress for the most part has downloaded much of the responsibility to the city government itself already.

All in all I can find only five instances that Congress blocked any city legislation, as it has the power to do.

As for #5, they already have effectively that power of a state government. Remember, the area being talked about is less area than a big city, and roughly the population of El Paso. There really is no need for a second layer of state administration ---- the city administration model by itself does fairly good for 68.3 sq miles and the population of El Paso.

And as opposed to the slant of the questions, there is popular selection of mayor and the rest of the city administration -- they are free to pick whomever they wish (even if it is a convicted crack dude called Marion Berry), and amazingly low interference from Congressional oversight on top of that.

The call for another level of government for a population of approximately the population of El Paso and an area of less than 1/3 the area of El Paso seems to be swinging at wiffle balls here.


But...but...but, TWO MORE SENATORS!!! Keep the eye on the prize.
07-09-2020 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,069
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 113
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2763
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-09-2020 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

I have said on multiple occasions that DC is in a unique position and that your historical examples do not really apply.

Original 13 - hasn't applied in over 220 years
Direct carve-outs - hasn't applied in over 100 years
Territories transition to statehood (non-geography) - hasn't applied in over 100 years
Territories transition to statehood (geographic) - hasn't applied for 60 years and clearly not a basket that DC falls into (unlike Puerto Rico)
State previously sovereign - hasn't applied in 175 years

I don't see any problem with adding a new category to your list.

(07-09-2020 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Lol, now for everyone's favorite pastime where Tanq literally invents a quote and attributes it to someone. 03-2thumbsup

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

Again with the made-up quote? You made up 2 quotes for me about North Dakota? No need to name-call, my "wasn't very many words" comment was meant as a joke and the "history books" comment was just a retort after you were a jerk and started lecturing me about history.

Your horse is so high, how can you possibly dismount without hurting yourself?

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess if you want to go the churlishness route with me, that is your choice.

Really? Coming from you? To quote Despereaux, "I am a gentleman."




(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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?

We have different opinions. Oh no!
[Image: giphy.gif]

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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? 01-wingedeagle

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.'

I understand ... my point was that this historical rationale obviously doesn't apply to all states, in fact it doesn't apply to most states. It obviously doesn't apply to DC.

Though in full fairness, I do owe you a slight apology as I misinterpreted your list to mean "factors" instead of "historical rationales" (which is what you actually wrote). I would have been slightly less snide with some of my responses if I had properly understood your list as being one of historic rationales (to which I have responded that DC is unique and doesn't fit your rationales) rather than factors (which made me think you were arguing that a combination of the list applied, rather than your list largely being one of distinct categories). So my bad on that one.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

You doing OK? You seem to be taking the low road more than usual. Sorry if I have contributed to that, I'm mostly trying to stay civil and more light-hearted.

(07-09-2020 12:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny, you previously made such a big show about Home Rule (and how it equated to sovereignty), yet in your rush you dont even notice how you have already made your last sentence a complete 180 from that previous point. Good job.

Big show?
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Congress passed the Home Rule Act which has already significantly lightened the load of Congress needing to oversee DC affairs. According DC sovereign status takes this the rest of the way and helps remove the force of national politics on issues that should be purely local.
...
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.

That was a pretty pitiful "big show" since I literally wrote that I hadn't done much research into it.

(07-09-2020 12:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And 3 is a rhetorical question with the passage of Home Rule, and the existence of an independent Mayor and City Council.

That impacts question 5. DC is a city, the city council as such has the effective power of a state over the entire 68.4 sq mi jurisdiction.

My understanding from my extremely limited and non-exhaustive research (aka my "big show") is that Congress can essentially veto or overturn a lot of what the city council or mayor does. Moreover, Congress can just get rid of home rule completely.
07-09-2020 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,069
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 113
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2764
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-09-2020 03:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd say no, no, no, no, no, no. DC is a unique situation.

Something we legitimately agree on 04-cheers
07-09-2020 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #2765
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-09-2020 07:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(07-09-2020 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

I have said on multiple occasions that DC is in a unique position and that your historical examples do not really apply.

Original 13 - hasn't applied in over 220 years
Direct carve-outs - hasn't applied in over 100 years
Territories transition to statehood (non-geography) - hasn't applied in over 100 years
Territories transition to statehood (geographic) - hasn't applied for 60 years and clearly not a basket that DC falls into (unlike Puerto Rico)
State previously sovereign - hasn't applied in 175 years

I don't see any problem with adding a new category to your list.

Just like a progressive to invent a brand new rationale and pull it out of their ass. Kind of the way y'all apply Constitutional law, so why not this instance. Color me surprised

Kind of repeated in the bold there. Screw the historical reasons/rationales -- lets just make one up to fit our current situation. Sounds like smashing fun there.

Quote:
(07-09-2020 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Lol, now for everyone's favorite pastime where Tanq literally invents a quote and attributes it to someone. 03-2thumbsup

Actually lad did say this (or its equivalent). My error was in implied attribution there. I am so fing sorry.

Quote:
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

Again with the made-up quote? You made up 2 quotes for me about North Dakota?

Just one there. My error here was a direct attribution to you.

Quote:No need to name-call, my "wasn't very many words" comment was meant as a joke and the "history books" comment was just a retort after you were a jerk and started lecturing me about history.

Perhaps if you did a little bit of background such a lecture wouldnt be necessary. The response was to your snide aside implying that I didnt bother to look at the background. So yes, the name calling was a perfect response to your snide as fk remark there.

From this perspective you are simply tossing a grab bag of **** against the wall in your support of DC statehood.

Glad to know you didnt have a historical insight into the process. That would have made you intentionally dishonest. Now, I guess what we should ascertain is that you dont give a rats ass about the rationales in the historical context. Sounds like fun.

Quote:Your horse is so high, how can you possibly dismount without hurting yourself?

07-coffee3, sparky.

Quote:
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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?

We have different opinions. Oh no!

Yes we do, and your opinion is that we have to have a special sovereign to look after the economic interests of the Federal government. That is, representative for the economic interests of the Federal government..... in..... (get this now)...... the federal government itself. (I **** you not....)

Again, do *you* think that sounds like anything remotely as smart or sane? In the first place, it sounds like a pretty much dumb as **** proposition myself. Secondly, it sounds exactly like the situation that the Founding Fathers expressly tried to avoid.

Quote:
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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? 01-wingedeagle

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.'

I understand ... my point was that this historical rationale obviously doesn't apply to all states, in fact it doesn't apply to most states. It obviously doesn't apply to DC.

Amazing, I am glad there is one factor you arent flushing down the toilet in quest to flush them all down the toilet.

Quote:Though in full fairness, I do owe you a slight apology as I misinterpreted your list to mean "factors" instead of "historical rationales" (which is what you actually wrote). I would have been slightly less snide with some of my responses if I had properly understood your list as being one of historic rationales (to which I have responded that DC is unique and doesn't fit your rationales) rather than factors (which made me think you were arguing that a combination of the list applied, rather than your list largely being one of distinct categories). So my bad on that one.

In fairness, in the way I interpret the admission of states, if one applies with any force, that has been a reason to admit the state.

Quote:
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

You doing OK? You seem to be taking the low road more than usual. Sorry if I have contributed to that, I'm mostly trying to stay civil and more light-hearted.

(07-09-2020 12:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny, you previously made such a big show about Home Rule (and how it equated to sovereignty), yet in your rush you dont even notice how you have already made your last sentence a complete 180 from that previous point. Good job.

Big show?
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Congress passed the Home Rule Act which has already significantly lightened the load of Congress needing to oversee DC affairs. According DC sovereign status takes this the rest of the way and helps remove the force of national politics on issues that should be purely local.
...
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.

That was a pretty pitiful "big show" since I literally wrote that I hadn't done much research into it.

(07-09-2020 12:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And 3 is a rhetorical question with the passage of Home Rule, and the existence of an independent Mayor and City Council.

That impacts question 5. DC is a city, the city council as such has the effective power of a state over the entire 68.4 sq mi jurisdiction.

My understanding from my extremely limited and non-exhaustive research (aka my "big show") is that Congress can essentially veto or overturn a lot of what the city council or mayor does. Moreover, Congress can just get rid of home rule completely.

Big difference between they 'can' and the extent that they do. Effectively, there is little to no oversight by Congress.

As to the last sentence they can as well. Relatedly, the President *can* also invoke the Insurrection Act on pretty much any grounds they want to. Historically, they havent. Doesnt make the Insurrection Act a killer for me.

If you could show me a long history of very realistic threats to do away with home rule, you might have a better point here. But you dont.
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2020 09:17 PM by tanqtonic.)
07-09-2020 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,069
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 113
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2766
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  No need to name-call, my "wasn't very many words" comment was meant as a joke and the "history books" comment was just a retort after you were a jerk and started lecturing me about history.

Perhaps if you did a little bit of background such a lecture wouldnt be necessary. The response was to your snide aside implying that I didnt bother to look at the background. So yes, the name calling was a perfect response to your snide as fk remark there.

From this perspective you are simply tossing a grab bag of **** against the wall in your support of DC statehood.

I'll be honest, it legit makes me feel sad to see you like this. We had some good back-and-forths and some more tense back-and-forths, but you are just exhibiting extreme amounts of bitterness and anger right now. Hopefully it is just your online persona that is suffering and that you are doing fine IRL.

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Glad to know you didnt have a historical insight into the process. That would have made you intentionally dishonest. Now, I guess what we should ascertain is that you dont give a rats ass about the rationales in the historical context. Sounds like fun.

Pretty sure I acknowledged on multiple occasions that this isn't a topic I have researched much and that it isn't something I have thought about a lot. Instead of educating me on the points you were trying to make (and I assume you realize I am quite smart so I could understand you), you decided to be a jerk. Again, I hope all is well.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Your horse is so high, how can you possibly dismount without hurting yourself?

07-coffee3, sparky.

I mean, you do act like you have supreme knowledge and intelligence on these matters. Don't shoot the messenger.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing, I am glad there is one factor you arent flushing down the toilet in quest to flush them all down the toilet.

I wish you would flush your attitude down the toilet. You are too ... cantanqorous!
07-10-2020 01:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #2767
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-10-2020 01:12 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  No need to name-call, my "wasn't very many words" comment was meant as a joke and the "history books" comment was just a retort after you were a jerk and started lecturing me about history.

Perhaps if you did a little bit of background such a lecture wouldnt be necessary. The response was to your snide aside implying that I didnt bother to look at the background. So yes, the name calling was a perfect response to your snide as fk remark there.

From this perspective you are simply tossing a grab bag of **** against the wall in your support of DC statehood.

I'll be honest, it legit makes me feel sad to see you like this. We had some good back-and-forths and some more tense back-and-forths, but you are just exhibiting extreme amounts of bitterness and anger right now. Hopefully it is just your online persona that is suffering and that you are doing fine IRL.

Yes we have had some good back and forths. And some tense ones, and typically those tense ones were defused.

You decided to make a snide as fk comment about 'if you were really reading the histories'. I returned you tone. Perhaps you should actually read the back and forth there. Perhaps I mentioned that above. Perhaps you didnt read that. Perhaps not.

I am simply returning the tone noted to me above. Perhaps there are two people to lecture here.

Quote:
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Glad to know you didnt have a historical insight into the process. That would have made you intentionally dishonest. Now, I guess what we should ascertain is that you dont give a rats ass about the rationales in the historical context. Sounds like fun.

Pretty sure I acknowledged on multiple occasions that this isn't a topic I have researched much and that it isn't something I have thought about a lot. Instead of educating me on the points you were trying to make (and I assume you realize I am quite smart so I could understand you), you decided to be a jerk. Again, I hope all is well.

Well, for whatever the reason, it is clear you dont subscribe the rationale used for all the other states. Perhaps you should tell us why you decide that *none* of those should be the criteria in lieu of your own 'pull it out of your ass' reasoning?

I am just noting here that that is what you are doing here. Or, how else should one take 'well lets just add some brand new items to the rationale'? When I hear that I typically think someone is just tossing a grab bag of **** because the ones that exist dont help their expected or wanted outcome. Just calling that call there for what it stands for.

As for 'educating you' what was tossed back 'well if you really did do that' type of snark. You know, the one I noted above. Given that snark, why should anyone bother with *any* 'educating'? Perhaps you should go back a bit and pull out the 3-5 posts on the issues I put out there if that is the issue. I think I went over that multiple times. *Now* you complain about 'ose nose, you didnt educate me, you called my position out.' Lolz.

Quote:
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Your horse is so high, how can you possibly dismount without hurting yourself?

07-coffee3, sparky.

I mean, you do act like you have supreme knowledge and intelligence on these matters. Don't shoot the messenger.

Far from it. At least I am not inventing a rationale from whole cloth. And imagine that, the guy who is laying out such a rationale from unicorn breath and dragon scales is saying that someone else's horse is so high.

Funny, you get really caught up in being the subject of supposed snippy comments, that you utterly and seemingly dont even notice that your entire response is such. Kind of rich, wouldnt you say?

Quote:
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing, I am glad there is one factor you arent flushing down the toilet in quest to flush them all down the toilet.

I wish you would flush your attitude down the toilet. You are too ... cantanqorous!

To be honest, you have made an amazing effort to flush pretty much every rationale down the toilet. I mean, you yourself noted 'why the hell dont we just make up this stuff as go along'. (paraphrase, as I would hate to be said that this is direct quote, but it will pass for what you decided was the course). Why exhibit such umbrage when that your wanting to shitcan the 'old' ones is noted in favor of those 'new ones' that you deem so critical?

Are you maddy about the bluntness of 'flushing down the toilet'? Then suggest some other words that wont set you off. But, the term in question seemingly is what you are advocating for. My advice, is that when you are called out for creating stuff out of whole cloth, be prepared to be called out on it. That is as opposed to wailing about an 'attitude'. Yep, how dare *anyone* note that action. The horrors.

I'll leave your last comment with that.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2020 01:54 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-10-2020 01:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,069
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 113
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2768
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-10-2020 01:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes we have had some good back and forths. And some tense ones, and typically those tense ones were defused.

You decided to make a snide as fk comment about 'if you were really reading the histories'. I returned you tone. Perhaps you should actually read the back and forth there. Perhaps I mentioned that above. Perhaps you didnt read that. Perhaps not.

I am simply returning the tone noted to me above. Perhaps there are two people to lecture here.

Well, on 7/8 at 4:26 pm (post #2733) you wrote:
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

I don't think I wrote anything objectional before that. So if you really want to point fingers at who was snide first in our current exchange and think that is a productive use of time...
[Image: giphy.gif]
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2020 02:02 AM by mrbig.)
07-10-2020 02:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #2769
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-10-2020 02:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(07-10-2020 01:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes we have had some good back and forths. And some tense ones, and typically those tense ones were defused.

You decided to make a snide as fk comment about 'if you were really reading the histories'. I returned you tone. Perhaps you should actually read the back and forth there. Perhaps I mentioned that above. Perhaps you didnt read that. Perhaps not.

I am simply returning the tone noted to me above. Perhaps there are two people to lecture here.

Well, on 7/8 at 4:26 pm (post #2733) you wrote:
(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

I don't think I wrote anything objectional before that. So if you really want to point fingers at who was snide first in our current exchange and think that is a productive use of time...
[Image: giphy.gif]

I guess this comment is absolutely pure:

Quote:As an initial matter, where did you come up with this list of "historical rationales for sovereigns"?

Cute use of quotes mind you.

So the answer is: "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. "

Which is a straight answer your question, mind you.

When you followed with the 'if you really did read that' snark, those two in conjunction engendered my 'tude, I surmise.

On the initial point, based on lads disparaging comment on the 'state of North Dakota', I was actually curious myself. I looked it up. If you wish to look it up and change it, go ahead. As I invited you to do above. I take it you have not done so.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2020 02:20 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-10-2020 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,812
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 879
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #2770
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-09-2020 11:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  This is rough, but bear with me. Or bare with me if you want to wait until the 13th. DC is unique and I think it is either disingenuous or intellectually lazy to pretend like it isn't.
1 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents ever been governed by a state government or state-like government?
2 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents every been residents of a neighboring state?
3 - does Congress always have the best interests of DC residents in mind when it governs DC?
4 - are DC residents represented in Congress in a way that makes Congressional members responsive to the concerns of DC residents?
5 - should DC residents have a state-like government or be part of a state government that they elect?
6 - should DC residents get to choose whether they prefer the status quo, whether they want their own state government, or whether they want to join Maryland?
To me, the answers for 1-4 appear to be "no" so the answers to 5 & 6 are "yes". Congress doesn't represent DC or DC residents, it represents the whole country. DC residents don't have, but deserve to have, a state-like government that they elect (or have some part in electing). Thus, DC residents should have the option of keeping or rejecting the status quo. If they want to keep the status quo, statehood or repatriation should not be forced on them. If they reject the status quo, they should have the option to form their own state or join a neighboring state. If they prefer to join a neighboring state, both that neighboring state and Congress must approve the decision. If they prefer to form their own state, it must be approved by Congress.

I'd say....
1) No... but if you want to change that, then all possibilities come into play.
2) Not simultaneously which is what I think you mean... what difference does that make?
3) No.... but they don't have the best interests of ANY single area in mind when they govern. That's the whole point of Congress. They all have SOME interest in DC, which generally isn't true of any other place in the nation.... maybe NYC.
4) Yes... because Congress is frequently a resident of DC, as are their staff and all supporting entities. There are something like 150,000 civilian Federal Employees in DC, not to mention those who support them (and their families)... almost none of whom would be there if Congress weren't there.

I honestly can't believe that you said 'no' to this.... because if nobody were responsive to their needs... how would they be among the 'better' areas?

5) Define state-like. They certainly have a fully functioning government.

6) Meh... It's been 200+ years... People knew what the situation was when they moved there. As you note, it's a fairly small area and there is plenty of transit... you could move a few miles (often a few blocks) and be represented if that's what you chose to do. Nobody moved there under false pretenses.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2020 09:46 AM by Hambone10.)
07-10-2020 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,069
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 113
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2771
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-10-2020 02:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess this comment is absolutely pure:

(07-10-2020 02:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  As an initial matter, where did you come up with this list of "historical rationales for sovereigns"?

Cute use of quotes mind you.

Yes, that question/comment was 100% pure. I was asking where you were coming up with your list and I was 0% a jerk in asking. I wasn't trying to be cute with the quotes, I was quoting you so that I got it correct. WTF man?

(07-10-2020 02:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the answer is: "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. "

Which is a straight answer your question, mind you.

Your answer did not feel straight, it felt like an uncle lecturing his 12-year-old nephew about history.

(07-10-2020 02:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the initial point, based on lads disparaging comment on the 'state of North Dakota', I was actually curious myself. I looked it up. If you wish to look it up and change it, go ahead. As I invited you to do above. I take it you have not done so.

I did look it up when North Dakota was first mentioned and spent about 20 seconds scanning the article before deciding I didn't care enough to read it in that moment.
07-10-2020 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,069
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 113
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2772
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-10-2020 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(07-10-2020 09:56 AM)mrbig Wrote:  3 - does Congress always have the best interests of DC residents in mind when it governs DC?

I'd say....
3) No.... but they don't have the best interests of ANY single area in mind when they govern. That's the whole point of Congress. They all have SOME interest in DC, which generally isn't true of any other place in the nation.... maybe NYC.

I'm kind of done with the topic. Only thing I wanted to clarify is that while Congress has some interest in the entire nation, DC is really the only place where they make laws specifically for that local community. Every other law is nation-wide. And DC is the only local community for which there is not voting representation in Congress (other than the territories).

Thank you for having a reasonable tone with your responses.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2020 10:01 AM by mrbig.)
07-10-2020 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,812
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 879
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #2773
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-10-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Only thing I wanted to clarify is that while Congress has some interest in the entire nation, DC is really the only place where they make laws specifically for that local community. Every other law is nation-wide. And DC is the only local community for which there is not voting representation in Congress (other than the territories).

Well, yeah... because the district exists primarily to support the federal government...

I don't know specifically what laws you're referring to... and I lived there for a decade and still have family there...

but yeah, I can absolutely see why the feds might make laws about say, traffic or parade routes or protests or whatever that are more supportive of the operation of government than of the individual liberties of the people who chose to move to a place under federal control.... It's like living on a military base and complaining that you can't 'blockade' the fighter jet hangers like you might be able to blockade the Chic-Fil-A in town.

DC is unique in that it is a Federal territory.... under Federal, not state jurisdiction. Some people have chosen to live there, with all the pros and cons that come with that..
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2020 12:24 PM by Hambone10.)
07-10-2020 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,279
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2774
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-10-2020 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(07-10-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Only thing I wanted to clarify is that while Congress has some interest in the entire nation, DC is really the only place where they make laws specifically for that local community. Every other law is nation-wide. And DC is the only local community for which there is not voting representation in Congress (other than the territories).
Well, yeah... because the district exists primarily to support the federal government...
I don't know specifically what laws you're referring to... and I lived there for a decade and still have family there...
but yeah, I can absolutely see why the feds might make laws about say, traffic or parade routes or protests or whatever that are more supportive of the operation of government than of the individual liberties of the people who chose to move to a place under federal control.... It's like living on a military base and complaining that you can't 'blockade' the fighter jet hangers like you might be able to blockade the Chic-Fil-A in town.

Good perspective, Hambone. +3
07-10-2020 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #2775
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(07-10-2020 09:56 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(07-10-2020 02:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess this comment is absolutely pure:

(07-10-2020 02:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  As an initial matter, where did you come up with this list of "historical rationales for sovereigns"?

Cute use of quotes mind you.

Yes, that question/comment was 100% pure. I was asking where you were coming up with your list and I was 0% a jerk in asking. I wasn't trying to be cute with the quotes, I was quoting you so that I got it correct. WTF man?

(07-10-2020 02:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the answer is: "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. "

Which is a straight answer your question, mind you.

Your answer did not feel straight, it felt like an uncle lecturing his 12-year-old nephew about history.

(07-10-2020 02:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the initial point, based on lads disparaging comment on the 'state of North Dakota', I was actually curious myself. I looked it up. If you wish to look it up and change it, go ahead. As I invited you to do above. I take it you have not done so.

I did look it up when North Dakota was first mentioned and spent about 20 seconds scanning the article before deciding I didn't care enough to read it in that moment.

Since you didnt look it up I can see why you got rankled.
07-10-2020 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.