Utopia Talk / Politics / Free Washington!!

Paramount Member	Sat Jun 27 03:15:53 House Democrats pass DC statehood bill Friday House Democrats approved a bill to admit Washington, DC, as a state on Friday, marking the first time either chamber of Congress has advanced a DC statehood measure. The bill passed with a vote of 232-180. Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota was the only Democrat to join Republicans in voting against it. Independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan also voted no. Trump told the New York Post in an interview last month that DC statehood will "never happen unless we have some very, very stupid Republicans." "DC will never be a state," Trump said in the interview. "You mean District of Columbia, a state? Why? So we can have two more Democratic -- Democrat senators and five more congressmen? No thank you. That'll never happen." http://edi...tatehood-vote-house/index.html "For more than two centuries, the residents of Washington, DC have been denied their full right to fully participate in our democracy" despite paying taxes, serving in the military and operating businesses” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ”DC will never be a state. That'll never happen.” – Dictator Trump They voted YES for freedom and democracy and WON. The people has spoken. The people wants equal voting rights and freedom! But the Republicans say NO nonetheless! The people’s wishes has to be respected! The oppression has to end. Free Washington!!
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 10:58:47 It's a ceremonial vote though. The Senate will not allow it and Trump would veto. So the deal is that its political football. The dems want 2 more senators and 3 more EC votes. Noe legally the constitution grants Comgress the power to grant statehood, but DC is a bit trickier. Puerto Rico is more straightforward. Since DC was placed under federal control it may not be legally allowed to be a state.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 27 11:02:27 "– Dictator Trump" What's your definition of a dictator Paramount? I'm quite curious.
Y2A Member	Sat Jun 27 12:42:28 one of the traits is usually ruling without the will of the people.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 27 12:46:06 I believe DC had its say in the Electoral College back in 2016.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 27 12:47:57 Habebe Has congress ever voted in the affirmative on this?
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 12:57:13 Nim, AFAIK, this is the first time either congressional house has voted in favor of this. Really though Dems only want it to get extra votes and Republicans only oppose it because they will lose some of the pie. Territories have a long history of becoming states. Im not sure if federally owned land has ever become a state, I dont think so. Its sort of shitty for PR, honestly the only.reason they wont become a state is because of the same political football situation. It may be easier for DC to be annexed by Virginia, but that thats a tricky situation since neither people probably want that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 27 13:02:24 Habebe Rome was not built in one day. But as for what the ”dems want” and for what reasons, there is actually the question of representation regardless. That one may not like the immediate result of that democratic process is neither here nor there. Domination of one party in a democracy is very rare, things tend to equalize eventually.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 27 13:07:52 Habebe Congress put DC statehood as a proposed amendment to the states in 1978. The states rejected it. Arguably, even if the Senate by some miracle did pass the legislation, its unconstitutional anyway.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 13:09:24 Fair enough. But then comes the issue of favouritism, the nations capital being a state would likley annoy many people.Which is why I brought up the annexation of DC by Virginia.
jergul large member	Sat Jun 27 13:12:47 Ruggy Well, if the US Supreme Court is going to start revoking Statehood's, the it probably should begin with Utah and Texas.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 27 13:15:56 Jergul DC statehood presents unique issues that do not apply to Utah, Texas, or any other state that you think doesnt deserve the right to vote.
jergul large member	Sat Jun 27 13:18:32 Ruggy What particular issue do you think bars it from using the method given in the Constitution to become a State of the USA?
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 27 13:23:27 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_the_District_of_Columbia#Arguments_against Knock yourself out.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 13:23:31 I wpuld like to makw the correction to have Maryland annex DC as part of Arlington County as most of Virginia was Maryland because Virginia already reclaimed much of its land from DC. So the parcel of land where the Federal buildings are would remain federal land. The rest of DC would be dissolved and become part of Maryland again. Possibly some metro areas would be broken up into West virginia and Virginia.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 13:34:26 Jergul, For starters the Constitution actually forbids the Federal seat of government to be under any other authority than federal powers ( like a state) Which makes sense. Which instead of making DC a state just disperse it into the surrounding states ( mostly Maryland) from which they came and dissolve DC as we know it. Now PR IMO is far more deserving of statehood. If they were not so pro Democrat and more of a swing "state" they would likley have it. Morally though, PR should be a state. Not DC.
jergul large member	Sat Jun 27 13:37:28 O reasons for why DC could not follow the constitutional procedure for becoming a State at your link. The district clause would apply to specific federally owned buildings and their immediate surroundings (similar to say embassies). Habebe Hmmm, become a state, or become part of Maryland. What should the people of DC choose?
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 13:51:18 Jergul, Article 8, section 1. Essentially it would give 2 senators to a city. Its gerrymandering on a grand scale. They already get 3 electoral votes.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 27 13:54:21 O reasons? I can only assume that was intentional, since there were more than 0 reasons provided.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 13:55:31 Sorry, Article 1, Section 8. "Clause 17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And"
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 13:58:57 Nimatzo, See there is the caveat. DC residents want statehood because it grants them there own Senators, they would not want retrocession even though they could have representation in Congress. So that's why IMO that neither side has a moral high ground and its mereley A political play.
jergul large member	Sat Jun 27 16:16:53 Ruggy 0 things that stop it from using the proscribed method in the constitution. Habebe Yepp, it is high stakes gerrymandering. Your point?
hood Member	Sat Jun 27 16:23:17 "Essentially it would give 2 senators to a city." A city that has a roughly equivalent population to North/South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. If all of those states get 2 seats in the senate, why shouldn't the civilian sections of DC? http://en....he_United_States_by_population
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 16:25:14 Well what would be wrong with retrocession? Just like Virginia.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 16:30:59 Hood, Population is a metric used for the House, not the Senate.This is intentional. If its truly about the individuals getting a say in congressional elections. Then revert them back to Maryland minus land explicitly needed for federal use.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 16:33:29 Puerto Rico has a better moral case to become a state.
hood Member	Sat Jun 27 17:04:54 "Hood, Population is a metric used for the House, not the Senate.This is intentional." I was using population as a metric to point out that calling DC just a "city" is ridiculous, as this city has the population of several full states. DC is also larger than 10 square miles, so suggesting that the entire city is prohibited from being a state is blatantly false. Something like 85% of the city should, legally, not be part of the federal district.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 17:45:28 "I was using population as a metric to point out that calling DC just a "city" is ridiculous, as this city has the population of several full states." And its still around the 20th most populous US city. As for its size, if.you scroll up I have said several times that legally they only really need the parts that house the federal buildings like congress. My argument is that the Reps dont want it because they don't want to grant 2 guaranteed democratic Senators. The Left wants it for precisley that reason.2 Democratic Senators. A fair compromise would be to absolve DC into the states from which they came ala retro cessation. This way they can vote and it counts. It doesn't just grant 2 free senators. They give up there 3 EC votes but will likley push MD over into the more likley blue column netting more anyway.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 17:47:41 Also, It says ten miles square, which is 100 square miles.
hood Member	Sat Jun 27 17:53:47 "My argument is that the Reps dont want it because they don't want to grant 2 guaranteed democratic Senators. The Left wants it for precisley that reason.2 Democratic Senators." And my point was, see: north/south dakota, wyoming/idaho, etc.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 18:03:42 Hood, And once again, they were admitted as states as part of a compromise federally similar to Alaska and Hawaii. Amongst other reasons. So what is your reasonable compromise. I would recommend the MD as a fair compromise, slanted in favor of the democrats if anything.
jergul large member	Sat Jun 27 18:19:06 Why compromise? DC and PR can both gain statehood the next time the democrats control Congress and presidency. Its just a question of biding time. The reasonable compromise is to wait until such a time.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 18:31:57 Jergul, Well that will likley lead to more partisanship. PR actually has a good amount of support. That poor place could use a Marshall plan to boot. Also, The Courts will likely gum up the works if not the Senate.
jergul large member	Sat Jun 27 18:53:30 DC has a good amount of support. The bill passed in the house of representatives. Now we just need to see if Trump fucks up enough for the downstream effects of his presidency gives the democrats the senate in 2020.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 27 19:08:29 Have you seen the house and things they've passed? Its the wild west. It was also passed knowing it would be shot down before the courts jumped in. Most Americans are not in favor of DC Statehood. PR has reasonable support and is more of a standard state. When possible compromise is generally preferred in a Republic.
kargen Member	Sat Jun 27 22:08:16 "DC and PR can both gain statehood the next time the democrats control Congress and presidency. Its just a question of biding time." It is going to take an amendment to the constitution for DC. It might take two amendments. Article 1, Section 8 would have to be changed. I know some have suggested DC be divided and the part not near the federal builds be made a state. That runs into the problem that the land belonged to another state and a new state can not be created from an existing state. The land would have to go back to the original state. That the land doesn't belong to a state now doesn't matter. The law isn't we can declare some land to be federal land then later make it a state. THe law is a new state can't be created from an existing state. So that would be another amendment to the constitution needed.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 01:01:29 Kargen No ammendments are needed to follow the proscription in the Constitution. DC is not an existing State. There are 0 Constitutional issues with parts of DC applying for Statehood and 0 Constitutional problems with Congress and the President granting that Statehood. The flaw you are looking for is the one that was created to crowbar Texas into the Union btw. Before that, a 2/3rds Senate majority was needed for Statehood.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 28 02:10:21 Oh look, US constitutional scholar jergul is lecturing kargen here.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 28 02:31:00 You are correct that DC is not an existing state. By the constitution it can not be. The land though was once part of a state. There is no loophole for states not being able to be created from another state. THe land would have to go back to the donating state.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 02:49:20 Ruggy Now watch me lecture kargen on property rights. Though I would say constitutional primary school teacher more than scholar. Kargen Oh? There is a clause that says DC has to return land to Maryland if it ever stopped using it as a federal district? Remind me not to buy a used car from you. It looks like you would insist the car was returned to you if I ever wanted to sell it to someone else. Though I applaud the communist sentiment that seems so ingrained with you.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 02:56:15 The constitution does not expressely state that a district cannot also be a state with state rights. It would be odd, as it would be a state where federal laws ruled supreme, but odd is not the same thing as "cannot be". That you have a distinct capital district at all is really the odd man out. I cannot think of a country off-hand that follows a similar practice. What an odd country you have. A republic emulating city-states sometimes, empires at others, and with - for all intents and purposes - a foreign affairs tyrannic monarch chosen every 4 years by an electoral college. Leader of the free world. How future generations will laugh that we ever thought that possible :D.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 28 05:41:02 "There is a clause that says DC has to return land to Maryland if it ever stopped using it as a federal district?" No there is not. You are making shit up. There is a part of the constitution that says no state can be created from an existing state. There is nothing in the constitution about a work around. There is not a loophole. The land by the constitution can not become another state. If I sold you a car with a written signed and notarized document saying you could only resell the car to me then yeah I would expect that to happen. If we had no such legal agreement then sell the car to whoever the fuck you want. The constitution is quite clear that no new state can be created from an existing state. Nothing in there about hey just make the land federal land for a bunch of years then do it. There is no exceptions. None. Please expand on your idea that the constitution of the United States of America is a communist document. Should be worth two laughs and a groan. "That you have a distinct capital district at all is really the odd man out. I cannot think of a country off-hand that follows a similar practice." And that matters not at all in this conversation. The US constitution provides for exactly that and if you have any reading comprehension skills at all you know why our constitution has that particular clause. May be an odd country but we do have our own laws and they should be followed or properly changed. Beats the hell out of having two people being able to say ya know what fuck this lets dissolve the parliament and start this shit show all over again. You see our constitution is ours. It is a set of our laws for our country. We have a way to change those laws when and if needed. If DC is to become a state there is a way to make that happen. A simple majority in congress is not that way. It will take an amendment to the constitution.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 05:58:25 It was your idea that Maryland has claim on the territory of DC that seemed almost communist in its lack of appreciating the finer details of ownership. DC is not a State. Parts of DC can use the mechanism the constitution provides to gain State status within the union if the population there, Congress, and the President agree. End of story.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 06:01:05 Your understanding of what is required to become a State in the Union passed away when Texas entered with a simple majority in Congress.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 28 08:50:53 "The flaw you are looking for is the one that was created to crowbar Texas into the Union btw. Before that, a 2/3rds Senate majority was needed for Statehood." What is this nonsense Also nothing you are saying addresses the actual questions of constitutionality here.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 09:04:14 Ruggy That is because there is no question of constitutionality. But hey. Feel free to challenge the bill the house just passed. If you truly think it is unconstitutional.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 28 09:16:42 PR will be a state before DC.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 28 09:16:55 You cant just say arbitrary things and expect the rest of us to go along with them. Constitutionality is an issue here. Also what's your source for the 2/3rds requirement pre-Texas?
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 09:22:45 Habebe Perhaps, if not simultaniously. Why should the DNC delay one or the other if it can do both. Ruggy Its not. You can make it a constitutional issue by requesting the supreme court rule on the bill the house of representatives passed. Wiki. All kinds of maneuvering since there was no 2/3rds Senate majority for Texas. So they invented a new way for States to enter.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 28 09:24:02 Legalities aside, because its likely that could be weasled around. Why should we make DC a state amd not just let them vote in MD and pay MD taxes.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 28 09:25:32 Jergul, Already answered that question.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 09:32:26 Because making most of DC a state gives the DNC two more senators.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 28 09:38:08 Jergul This is why I cant take your pretentious of being a constitutional authority seriously. You just confused Article IV, Section 3 with Article II, Section 2. 2/3rds majority is required for treaties with foreign states (which Texas was at the time). It has never been required for turning existing territories into states. Maybe you should defer to the Americans here when it comes to understanding our constitutional order?
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 09:53:34 Ruggy You misunderstood the point. Texas finnangled its way in. If you absolutely want the supreme court to start revoking statehoods, then it should start with Texas and Utah (I did not choose those states randomly), then it can do the state Most of DC.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 28 09:56:39 Jergul No cases are identical to each other. Texas being admitted under unique circumstances does not give DC the green light to ignore the constitutional issues of its admittal.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 10:01:29 Did, or did not the house of representatives just pass a bill on Most of DC Statehood?
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 28 10:04:37 House can pass whatever it likes. Pelosi has spent the last two years passing a whole slew of things that will never become law. Just because she has no regards for constitutional considerations, that doesnt mean DC statehood would hold up in court.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 10:19:05 I am pretty sure the supreme court would be extremely reluctant to revoke Statehood already granted. It should just lead to a circus anyway. Most of DC adapting to whatever ruling was made, then reapplying for statehood.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 10:21:00 My point is that the house demonstratibly feels it has a green light. Why would you expect differently of a DNC senate and democratic president?
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 28 10:39:35 There would be the aftermath of giving the POTUS 3 electoral votes to clean up. Well anyone.still living in the shrunken federal district, but a POTUS could easily just stack the deck. That actually would require a lot to fix, considering how much it takes to chamge an amendment.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 28 12:09:06 "A city that has a roughly equivalent population to North/South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming." Nobody forced the fucking retards to move into a district Constitutionally separated from states.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 12:24:46 Fowyn No taxation without representation!
kargen Member	Sun Jun 28 17:11:12 jergul you keep mentioning Texas and Utah as if the pertain to the argument. They do not. They were not created from land that once belonged to another state. So how they became a state doesn't matter. For DC to become a state it would take an amendment to the constitution. Different circumstance so different rules apply.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 28 17:17:43 Kargen That is definately untrue. What is needed for parts of DC to become a State in an application, approval in two legislatures, and a presidential signature. Most of DC becomes a State then. The US Supreme Court could make a ruling a year or so down the road I suppose, but it is hard to see how it would be able to reverse Statehood. And if it could, then why not revoke more statehoods. Any number of States were created in ways that would not be acceptable today. Indian tribes should certainly contest States formed on their soil. To name one amusing example. Texas of course definitely did not have the 2/3rds of Senate it needed for Statehood. So that should certainly be revisited.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 28 17:45:47 Well, They would likley place an injunction on the territory.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 28 17:51:37 Kargen, I think the constitutionality issues could be weasled through. The bigger issue would be anout those 3 electoral votes left in the remaims of the capital. The 23rd amendment grants them those 3 regardless of population. If DC in theory becomes a state they are no longer entitled to them, they will get there own new ones.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 28 18:54:24 "No taxation without representation!" DC has a representative in Congress with committee and floor-speaking privileges.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 28 22:24:53 ". What is needed for parts of DC to become a State in an application, approval in two legislatures, and a presidential signature." Sure...if the land had not once belonged to an existing state. As it turns out though unless something has changed I didn't find there is a way to have a portion of DC become a state without an amendment. The state the land used to belong to would have to also vote and pass a resolution stating they are okay with it. Not sure why a state would want to do that when they could just get the land back and inherit the representatives that would go with it. But no what you are claiming would not work. It isn't constitutional. I know your constitution can just be scrapped on a whim but the process for changing ours is a bit more rigorous.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 29 03:06:16 Kargen I just explained to you how it would happen. A DNC controlled DC would section off a region to use as a capital district. A DNC controlled DC would then apply for statehood. A DNC controlled congress would accept that application. A democratic president would sign off on Statehood. DC would become a State. What is not constitutional is thinking that stuff you do not like is automatically unconstitutional and therefore impossible. Funny, you seemed to grasp that refusing to testify to Congress needed a Supreme Court ruling to determine if it is Constitutional or not. Yet you struggle to see how a Supreme Court ruling is the only way to find DC Statehood unconstitutional.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 29 03:09:22 Forwyn The US had colonial representatives in London. Did not B. Franklin do a stint there before embroiling France in a colonial war? DC is member of an international organization for underrepresented peoples. For good reason as the people of DC are highly underrepresented.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 29 19:09:17 Well, I suppose they could declare themselves a new nation... I don't think it would end well. Also Jergul, the Colony didnt get a say in who was King.
kargen Member	Mon Jun 29 22:07:35 "I just explained to you how it would happen." No you didn't. You explained how you think it could happen. It can't happen like that because we have this thing called a constitution and congress has to follow it just like the rest of us. I haven't mentioned the Supreme Court at all. I don't need them to tell me this would be unconstitutional. If it got there I fully expect they would rule as such. Constitution is clear about what it takes for a state to be created from land that belonged to an existing state. There isn't a caveat in there.
hood Member	Mon Jun 29 22:31:40 "Constitution is clear about what it takes for a state to be created from land that belonged to an existing state." Belongs, not belonged. And it very clearly states that states may be split or joined, so long as those states consent. "Article 4 Section 3 1: 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." DC belongs to no state. It is not within the jurisdiction of any other state. It is federal property. It could very easily be stripped of its federal ownership and granted status as a state if congress approved. The language is pretty clear. "Within the Jurisdiction" doesn't mean "within the Jurisdiction at any point in history." As always, you are just plain fucking wrong, karen.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 29 22:55:08 I think hood is right. The only catch would be the residence act and how its worded. In other words does it specifically state it ceded said land for the sole purpose of a federal district or not. But again, legally speaking the bigger issue would be the.remainder of the district still having 3 electoral votes which would likely favor the incumbent unfairly. And would require changing the constitution.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 30 02:31:56 Kargen Trump has repeatedly demostrated that following the Constitution just because is not the case. You understood that perfectly well when you complained about Congress not follwing the constitution and getting a supreme court ruling to void executive privilege and force people to testify. Not that I think that following the Constitutional procedure for establishing a new state is unconstitutional. Habebe Reading is so important. That insertion of a "new country" you did there was not based on anything I posted at least. The district would keep its 3 electoral seats until such a time as the ammendment was changed. Many, many 1000nds of people would still be living in the district and 3 is only slightly more than 1% of the total electoral college. 3 seats would seldom determine the choice of president. Not to mention that the electoral college heavily favours low population states anyway. If you want to change the constitution for more fairness, then perhaps get rid of the electoral college completely and render the 3 electorate problem moot.
Habebe Member	Tue Jun 30 04:53:24 Jergul, You referenced themes regarding US/GB war of independence. You have an odd sense of "fairness". I also wouldnt agree that the EC heavily favors low pop. States. As you said ehatnis 3 EC votes? Regardless, thos insignificant 3 votes would piss off more people than granting DC Statehood would make happy. In general the US people by total or by representation dont want it. Its unlikely that even a democratic house/senate and potus could get such a thing passed, there would be backlash and most politicians dont lile pissing off there voters.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 30 05:30:41 habebe I was recognzing to moral imperative that was the base justification for the formation of your nation-state. It more than a little bit hypocritical to deny to some what is the basis for the existence of your state at all. Those insignficant 3 vote would piss off less people than electing Trump did. So since when should pissing off people be a criteria for not doing something? The EC heavily favours low pop States, though not as heavily as the Senate does of course. Wyoming has 1/3rd the number of people per electoral vote that California does. With its 580 000 population to DCs 785 000, it is even more over represented than DC is. Bot have 3 electoral college votes. So if you want electoral reform, then you may as well do it properely and elect presidents by popular vote.
Habebe Member	Tue Jun 30 06:04:55 " Those insignficant 3 vote would piss off less people than electing Trump did. So since when should pissing off people be a criteria for not doing something?" The difference is balance. Electing Trump also caused a great deal of people to be ecstatic. Only a small hand full of people would be really happy for DC to become a state. Nationally people think they actually get a sweet deal , he federal government being the largest employer and they dont have to pay for things a state does, while they still get EC votes. Popular vote leads to plenty of unfairness as well, why should a hand full of coastal cities have complete say over the majority of territory? It would be like Europe voting for one leader that would supersede their national leaders. That probably wouldnt be very popular with a lot of people since largwr Nations like.Germany would likely win.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 30 06:22:22 Habebe Any democrat who understands how the Senate works would be glad to see most of DC as a state. It gives a more fair balance. A lot of shitty, small states are GOP. So it gives a better balance of small, shitty states with 2 senators. Why should a minority of voters be electing the president? Its not democratic. You tweak such things in other ways. For example by limiting executive powers. The idea that you need to elect a pseudo-tyrant every 4 years was perhaps warranted in the age of monarchies, but is archaic today for actual democracies. Pseudo democracies are fond of strong executive branches for their own, unseemly, reasons.
Habebe Member	Tue Jun 30 06:34:42 Well, we have always been more a republic than a democracy. We have the EC for the same reason we have the Senate, so as not to be sure next to mob rule and its whims, it adds balance to a majority vote. As for your " pseudo tyrant" rant, I assume your dislike of potus powers in the realm of foriegn policy. Well, that was not initially the case, tbis grew over time to meet the needs of the nation.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 30 07:45:42 What rant? I correctly characterized the lack of checks on executive powers outside of US jurisdiction. It used to be more understated, but the Trump Doctrine of tweeting loudly and waving a small dick has neatly illustrated to the world how arbitrary and uncontrolled executive actions abroad can be.
Habebe Member	Tue Jun 30 08:07:53 This isn't the first time.youve referenced his genitals, is that a secret crush I sense?
jergul large member	Tue Jun 30 08:44:25 Figurative use and a play on words from good old Teddy Roosevelt. What is wrong with you?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: