President Joe Biden

Non that I'm aware of but I'm not talking about rules, Cjn is.



Nope, time hasn't changed the need for the Fed Gov to be as free from influence as possible. It's a pretty timeless concern
But does not apply to admitting PR and DC, as they contain American citizens that just do not have full representation and control of their own territories like that of states.

Unless you are arguing Americans shouldn’t influence the American government?

So, again, the text is not applicable and your argument is nonsense.
 
Why is the nations capital being able to vote a problem in the US but not the U.K., Spain, France, Brazil or anywhere fucking else? It’s the most idiotic and preposterous argument I’ve ever heard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjn
I'll break this into two posts because the topics are quite different

The strength of an argument has nothing to do with the century in which it was made.
Correct, but in this case the argument doesn't make sense in either century. Does anyone think the Cities of London and Westminster shouldn't have an MP representing its 65k constituents just because the Parliament is physically located there? Of course not, because that would be really stupid. In a world where a revolving door exists between the lobbying industry and Congress the idea that giving representation to the citizens of Washington DC, a majority-minority mostly working class city by the way, is a step too far is absolutely laughable.
 
Which rules were broken?
None, that's the entire point. A big problem with the US system is that there are a ton of "rules" that aren't actually rules so much as they are things we do based on tradition and decorum. Once one side shows a complete disregard for that, which is within the rules but no democratic or fair in any way, then everything else is fair game - including "crazy ideas" like adding more states or more justices, both of which have been done many times in the country's history.
 
None, that's the entire point. A big problem with the US system is that there are a ton of "rules" that aren't actually rules so much as they are things we do based on tradition and decorum. Once one side shows a complete disregard for that, which is within the rules but no democratic or fair in any way, then everything else is fair game - including "crazy ideas" like adding more states or more justices, both of which have been done many times in the country's history.

To quote you:
"If winning the presidency and a senate majority with a minority of the votes and then using that power [...]"

What etiquette was broken here?

Both parties have gone down the route the GOP did in 2016 by bringing up nonsense about some mythical "rule" when blocking a nomination. It's just PR
 
To quote you:
"If winning the presidency and a senate majority with a minority of the votes and then using that power [...]"

What etiquette was broken here?

Both parties have gone down the route the GOP did in 2016 by bringing up nonsense about some mythical "rule" when blocking a nomination. It's just PR
You’ve not answered the question as to why only the US capital couldn’t have representation.
 
I'll break this into two posts because the topics are quite different


Correct, but in this case the argument doesn't make sense in either century. Does anyone think the Cities of London and Westminster shouldn't have an MP representing its 65k constituents just because the Parliament is physically located there? Of course not, because that would be really stupid. In a world where a revolving door exists between the lobbying industry and Congress the idea that giving representation to the citizens of Washington DC, a majority-minority mostly working class city by the way, is a step too far is absolutely laughable.

The US has a different philosophy underpinning a different system and is a much larger and more decentralised country.
And are we to believe that London hasn't been/isn't favoured?
As I said earlier on the answer to influence (what is there, like 16000 permanent lobbyists in DC?) over the Fed Gov isn't to make it worse, it's to make it better.

People who moved to DC knew the deal, it's in the Constitution. A better solution would perhaps be for DC not to have to pay taxes and get their funding calculated based on a bunch of factors like average state spending per capita or something along those lines
 
The US has a different philosophy underpinning a different system and is a much larger and more decentralised country.
And are we to believe that London hasn't been/isn't favoured?
As I said earlier on the answer to influence (what is there, like 16000 permanent lobbyists in DC?) over the Fed Gov isn't to make it worse, it's to make it better.

People who moved to DC knew the deal, it's in the Constitution. A better solution would perhaps be for DC not to have to pay taxes and get their funding calculated based on a bunch of factors like average state spending per capita or something along those lines
So you don’t believe that Americans should influence American government.

That’s all you had to say; no need for pontifications and diversions.

Calm down, I'm 'fighting' on 3 fronts here and I also have other stuff to do like eating, shitting etc.
I would suggest you can stop ‘fighting’ on those fronts at any time, which would afford you more time for eating, shitting, reading, ruminating, etc.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.