• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico only needs 50 votes

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.
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.
 
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.
DC and PR becoming states would be illegitimate under the following circumstances:

1) They were not already American.
2) They didn't want to be states.
3) The Democrat majority was gained illegitimately.

Since none of the three conditions have been met, a decision to make them states would be legitimate.
 
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.
Admitting DC and PR as states will not establish one-party rule. Not even close.

I'd add that they should do it, because it's the right thing to do. DC has the same population as all of Vermont, but no representation in Congress; every law locals pass can be overturned by the same Congress where they get no representation.

The same goes for Puerto Rico, but even worse, as it has more people than 10 states, and a variety of disadvantages as a result of being a territory.
 
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.
Yeah, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Garland.

That was an example of Republicans hypocritically gaming the system to avoid losing power. In case you missed it, Republicans are more than capable of winning majorities in the House and Senate.

Setting up DC and/or PR as states is about proper representation of their constituents by the federal government, not about stacking the deck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
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
Some of us do not fear brown people.
 
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.
I mean there are Puerto Rican politicians that are somewhat more aligned with the GOP than the Democrats.
 
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.

Any city, region, territory or country that wants to be a state should be. That way nearly the entire world can receive stimulus checks, SNAP, medicare, disability and social security payments.
 
Let me guess---too brown.
Let me guess --- race-baiting.

No. Too CORRUPT. As a state, PR would make Illinois politicians (mostly Chicago-connected ones) look like Boy Scouts in comparison.
 
Let's start making some states!
 
Back
Top Bottom