Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #21
Remove the 17th amendment. It would be easier to start to realign Federal Senators. Why we still have the time. If we still do.
Not happening, just like term limits are not happening.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remove the 17th amendment. It would be easier to start to realign Federal Senators. Why we still have the time. If we still do.
He forgot because he's an idiot undergoing the rapid onset of alzheimers?DC and Puerto Rico aren't being admitted as states, so it's a moot discussion
Even if the Senate is 50/50 and Harris owns the tiebreaking vote? Why would Joe lie to his constituents and break a campaign promise so early in his administration?
We don't need some shithole 3rd world island dragging down the mainland.
Sell that shit to someone for a Klondike bar. It only takes a minimal amount of intelligence to see what kind of massive tourist trap you could build to make bank. Yet here they are decades later living in squalor.
As for DC, you get what you vote for. A shithole surrounded by beauty.
Divide California into like 4 different states.
San Fran and LA hold the entire state hostage and they own too many electoral votes.
Warshington( i know it is Washington, just the locals call it that) DC is a city, and was never supposed to be more than that, now if the prog slaves in the city want to have Senators, they can move to Maryland or Virginia.Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
Now for the slave fire dance...music begins..
I've been curious, as to the splitting of DC into a state. Can it actually happen? I ask because the constitution says that the seat of government cannot be a state, which means the 10 mile square area cannot be part of any state.
To form Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia had to cede land. Wouldn't this mean that any land not apportioned as the seat of government would have to go back to the original states? Meaning, you couldn't form a new state, the land would have to go back to Maryland and Virginia.
Just curious.
Warshington( i know it is Washington, just the locals call it that) DC is a city, and was never supposed to be more than that, now if the prog slaves in the city want to have Senators, they can move to Maryland or Virginia.Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
Now for the slave fire dance...music begins..
There is no reason for DC to be a state.it is not how the founders intended it to be. By design, they felt that DC should be a seat, not a state. Of course the advocates for DC Statehood will bring up the race card for justification and entitlement. These are the same people crying about gentrification.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.
Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?
What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.
Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?
Failed history in high school, huh?
Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.
DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.
Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?
Failed history in high school, huh?
Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.
DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.
As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.
Almost the entire media machine backing them in virtually any way they can.What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes your being hosed.When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.
Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?
Failed history in high school, huh?
Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.
DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.
As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.
Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.
Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?
Failed history in high school, huh?
Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.
DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.
As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.
You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!
Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?
3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.
It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.
Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?
Failed history in high school, huh?
Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.
DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.
As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.
As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.
You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!
To simply apply the Missouri Compromise seems like a very rational solution but unfortunately there is an additional legal hoop of getting California and Virginia to agree. Article IV Section 3 says:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Article IV - States, Citizenship, New States | The National Constitution Center
Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?