4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

new states

What new states?  Puerto Rico?  DC?

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

What new states?  Puerto Rico?  DC?

Both, or breaking California up into 2 states, which no one really talks about but they should absolutely do.

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Both, or breaking California up into 2 states, which no one really talks about but they should absolutely do.

if we're going to wishcast about things that will never happen like breaking up CA, I'd rather see the Dakotas + Montana and Wyoming merged into one state, which makes much more sense from a population standpoint. You'd also probably see Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine rolled into one state, and Connecticut/Massachusetts can fight over Rhode Island. Delaware should also be folded in to Maryland. They're all absolutely tiny states.

I don't know what to do with Alaska.

None of that will happen though.

I do not actually disagree with the way the Senate is set up to resist majoritarian rule, but I think it can be updated. If you want to have 2 senators as a baseline, I think you then make some kind of adjustment each census so that some states get extra senators based on some formula. So Texas and California maybe gets 4 or even 5, while Wyoming and the Dakotas still get 2 each. This would still help ensure rural and less populous states are not lorded over by more populous states, while not allowing it to get so perverted that states like Wyoming with 600k people get the same representation in the Senate as California with 40M people. 

15 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

if we're going to wishcast about things that will never happen like breaking up CA, I'd rather see the Dakotas + Montana and Wyoming merged into one state, which makes much more sense from a population standpoint. You'd also probably see Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine rolled into one state, and Connecticut/Massachusetts can fight over Rhode Island. Delaware should also be folded in to Maryland. They're all absolutely tiny states.

I don't know what to do with Alaska.

None of that will happen though.

I do not actually disagree with the way the Senate is set up to resist majoritarian rule, but I think it can be updated. If you want to have 2 senators as a baseline, I think you then make some kind of adjustment each census so that some states get extra senators based on some formula. So Texas and California maybe gets 4 or even 5, while Wyoming and the Dakotas still get 2 each. This would still help ensure rural and less populous states are not lorded over by more populous states, while not allowing it to get so perverted that states like Wyoming with 600k people get the same representation in the Senate as California with 40M people. 

I don't see why breaking California into 2 states is any more far-fetched than admitting any other state.  It's a completely different sort of proposition than combining states, which would be 100% impossible.  Constitutionally, when you break a state up or combine two or more states, you have to have the consent of the state itself.  But California is ruled by Democrats, so it wouldn't be impossible.  Would it be difficult to get someone to essentially cede power over half of their territory?  Yeah it probably would, but in the broader, party loyalty sense, I don't think it would be impossible.  

I think you need so many things to be brought into alignment politically to break up one state (especially one as powerful and complex as California) that it's roughly as difficult as trying to force multiple states into one.

I think the practical path, if there is a path (which I don't know there is), would be to apply at least some of the original reasoning behind the Senate vs. House into a more modern approach given the demographics of a 50-state union.

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I don't see why breaking California into 2 states is any more far-fetched than admitting any other state.  It's a completely different sort of proposition than combining states, which would be 100% impossible.  Constitutionally, when you break a state up or combine two or more states, you have to have the consent of the state itself.  But California is ruled by Democrats, so it wouldn't be impossible.  Would it be difficult to get someone to essentially cede power over half of their territory?  Yeah it probably would, but in the broader, party loyalty sense, I don't think it would be impossible.  

Power is a thing rarely put back into the bottle once possessed, which makes Washington such an amazing man along with the rest of the Founding Fathers. 

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Power is a thing rarely put back into the bottle once possessed, which makes Washington such an amazing man along with the rest of the Founding Fathers. 

I wonder what Washington would think about the current Republican party.

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Power is a thing rarely put back into the bottle once possessed, which makes Washington such an amazing man along with the rest of the Founding Fathers. 

This isn't exactly a 1 to 1 proposition with going from ruler of a nation to a private citizen.  This is going from a legislator in the most populous state in the union to a legislator in the third or fourth most populous state in the union.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

I wonder what Washington would think about the current Republican party.

Probably be pissed like the rest of us, but in a two party system you have two choices. If he had to choose between the two we currently have I seriously doubt anyone can stand on high ground thinking he'd pick Democrats with a VP candidate with Harris's radical views. 

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Probably be pissed like the rest of us, but in a two party system you have two choices. If he had to choose between the two we currently have I seriously doubt anyone can stand on high ground thinking he'd pick Democrats with a VP candidate with Harris's radical views. 

If it's between a VP with radical views and President with radical views, I'm pretty sure Washington would choose the VP.  He was well aware that the President has more authority than the VP.

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

If it's between a VP with radical views and President with radical views, I'm pretty sure Washington would choose the VP.  He was well aware that the President has more authority than the VP.

Biden isn't going to finish his term. No point in going round and round on the rest. Radical views? OK. 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

If there are states that don't have laws against licking someone, then yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to a federal mandate. Once all states have laws forbidding licking someone else, than the federal mandate is pointless.

Weren't you the one just preaching the importance of government staying out of people's lives?  

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Biden isn't going to finish his term. No point in going round and round on the rest. Radical views? OK. 

You're a joke.

Just now, VanHammersly said:

You're a joke.

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Probably be pissed like the rest of us, but in a two party system you have two choices. If he had to choose between the two we currently have I seriously doubt anyone can stand on high ground thinking he'd pick Democrats with a VP candidate with Harris's radical views. 

yeah ok.

9 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Weren't you the one just preaching the importance of government staying out of people's lives?  

That doesn't mean I want anarchy. Limited government doesn't mean absence of government. And where talking about actions that would be limited to the current circumstances we find ourselves in. During a global pandemic, the federal government has a responsibility to coordinate a disaster response to limit the loss of lives. Wearing a mask is not some major infringement on your civil liberties. If you want to talk about eliminating civil asset forfeiture, breaking up regulatory bureaucracies, cutting spending, improving fiscal responsibilities, etc, then yeah, I'm on board. But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about a "choice" that now infringes on the rights of others. As an asymptomatic carrier, you could be infecting several others by "choosing" not to wear a mask. It's in the same vein as "choosing" to get hammered and get behind the wheel of a car. 

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Uhh, if there's ever a time that we need more government, not less, it's during a freaking global pandemic. Leaving the states to figure everything out on their own end is a recipe for disaster during an actual disaster. 

In fact, it's alarming that you think that's a good thing, in all honesty.

Let's be honest.  If Trump had come up with a national plan you all would be screaming at the top of your lungs that he was violating the constitution and was responsible for gross government overreach....just like you did when he sent the Feds into Portland.  The fact is that we live in a republic, states are supposed to manage themselves with support from the federal government when they request it.  When the state governors requested support in testing, beds, ventilators and PPE...they all got it. 

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

Let's be honest.  If Trump had come up with a national plan you all would be screaming at the top of your lungs that he was violating the constitution and was responsible for gross government overreach....just like you did when he sent the Feds into Portland.  The fact is that we live in a republic, states are supposed to manage themselves with support from the federal government when they request it.  When the state governors requested support in testing, beds, ventilators and PPE...they all got it. 

No, I wouldn't. As an example, I praised him when he swallowed his pride and starting wearing a mask. And then rightfully returned to criticizing him when he stopped wearing it. Likewise, I praised his effort to increase price transparency in medical costs and was glad to see hospitals lose that battle when they tried to overturn it. I do give him credit when he does something that actually makes sense, but he doesn't exactly give me many opportunities to do so.

36 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Let's be honest.  If Trump had come up with a national plan you all would be screaming at the top of your lungs that he was violating the constitution and was responsible for gross government overreach....just like you did when he sent the Feds into Portland.  The fact is that we live in a republic, states are supposed to manage themselves with support from the federal government when they request it.  When the state governors requested support in testing, beds, ventilators and PPE...they all got it. 

I support Trump's move to get out of the Middle East and Other places, I am sure Biden will not do the same.

 

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No, I wouldn't. As an example, I praised him when he swallowed his pride and starting wearing a mask. And then rightfully returned to criticizing him when he stopped wearing it. Likewise, I praised his effort to increase price transparency in medical costs and was glad to see hospitals lose that battle when they tried to overturn it. I do give him credit when he does something that actually makes sense, but he doesn't exactly give me many opportunities to do so.

Maybe you would.  But I assure you that you are in the minority in here.  

4 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Maybe you would.  But I assure you that you are in the minority in here.  

Nope. That's the right wing persecution complex talking.

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Nope. That's the right wing persecution complex talking.

No offense Snow, but your track record of despising all things Trump makes me skeptical.  In fact, I bet if I went back through your posts you were one of the ones criticizing him when we said that he "had absolute control" over the Covid response.  The media and all the never Trumpers went nuts over that...as they should have.  It was a stupid statement and it was constitutionally inaccurate.

The fact is that he made the right call on this.  There is no difference between a state mask mandate and a federal mask mandate as far as the people are concerned.  Let the system work as it should.  The feds wouldn't even begin to know how to police it anyway. 

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

No offense Snow, but your track record of despising all things Trump makes me skeptical.  In fact, I bet if I went back through your posts you were one of the ones criticizing him when we said that he "had absolute control" over the Covid response.  The media and all the never Trumpers went nuts over that...as they should have.  It was a stupid statement and it was constitutionally inaccurate.

The fact is that he made the right call on this.  There is no difference between a state mask mandate and a federal mask mandate as far as the people are concerned.  Let the system work as it should.  

What the ef are you talking about?

I haven't said anything about a mask mandate one way or the other. 

Trump doesn't have the authority to put a federal mask mandate in place. But that doesn't mean the federal government is impotent; Trump could have used his clout to ask Americans to come together, to voluntarily follow the guidelines around wearing a mask and social distancing, and to empower the CDC to help lead the nation through the pandemic as best they can.

Instead he politicized it from day one, calling it a hoax and manufacturing a wedge issue out of something that should have been a unifying event to get the nation all rowing in the same direction.

We have seen three years of divisive, feckless leadership. To the point where you think this is somehow acceptable.

4 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

No offense Snow, but your track record of despising all things Trump makes me skeptical.  In fact, I bet if I went back through your posts you were one of the ones criticizing him when we said that he "had absolute control" over the Covid response.  The media and all the never Trumpers went nuts over that...as they should have.  It was a stupid statement and it was constitutionally inaccurate.

The fact is that he made the right call on this.  There is no difference between a state mask mandate and a federal mask mandate as far as the people are concerned.  Let the system work as it should.  The feds wouldn't even begin to know how to police it anyway. 

Masks mandates should be determined by the states.