Yes, well, I disagree for the same reason I don't think conservative Presidents should govern as if they have a mandate after losing the popular vote, and Merrick Garland should have been given a vote. I don't want to be re-litigating whether D.C. and P.R. becoming states was an abuse of power or illegitimate (which could call into question every thing Dems do from here on out) for the next 100 years.51% is arbitrary. Relying on or not relying on the VP is arbitrary. If Democrats had 51% control then somebody could just come in and demand 52% control. Assuming no filibuster, majority control is majority control.
DC and PR becoming states would be illegitimate under the following circumstances:Yes, well, I disagree for the same reason I don't think conservative Presidents should govern as if they have a mandate after losing the popular vote, and Merrick Garland should have been given a vote. I don't want to be re-litigating whether D.C. and P.R. becoming states was an abuse of power or illegitimate (which could call into question every thing Dems do from here on out) for the next 100 years.
Admitting DC and PR as states will not establish one-party rule. Not even close.We do not currently have one-party control. Republicans have unfair advantages in the way that the EC and Senate work, but we do not have one-party control, as demonstrated by the fact that Dems currently control both houses of Congress and two of the three branches of government.
Yeah, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Garland.Yes, well, I disagree for the same reason I don't think conservative Presidents should govern as if they have a mandate after losing the popular vote, and Merrick Garland should have been given a vote.
Cut PR loose. It's too corrupt to be a state.Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico only needs 50 votes
And Democrats don't need to nuke the filibuster to do ittheweek.com
Lets hope they get in or (in the case of Puerto Rico) we cut them loose and let them be their own country.
Some of us do not fear brown people.Be patient
With our past Vain politicians decisions on way... too high legal immigration numbers, you have nothing to worry about and you're on your way
Let me guess---too brown.Cut PR loose. It's too corrupt to be a state.
You forgot the Biden reason for the statehood, DEM VOTES!Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico only needs 50 votes
And Democrats don't need to nuke the filibuster to do ittheweek.com
Lets hope they get in or (in the case of Puerto Rico) we cut them loose and let them be their own country.
I mean there are Puerto Rican politicians that are somewhat more aligned with the GOP than the Democrats.It should not matter a whit whether granting a territory statehood does or does not 'ensure one party or another has control of government' as long as the other party has every opportunity to compete for the allegiance of Puerto Ricans on the same basis it competes in other states. We grant statehood because they want it, have earned it and it provides them with an equal political footing to advocate for their interests, just as preexisting states can.
The republicans have a remedy available. They can persuade Puerto Ricans to become republicans and give them control of government.
Then every vote is “controversial.” If DC and PR are American (they are) and if they want to be states (by all accounts they do) then they should be states. We’re not talking about forcing them to be states when they don’t want to be.
Let me guess --- race-baiting.Let me guess---too brown.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?