Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Xzi]

It seems to be appealing enough to give them 50 seats in the Senate. You're being facetious, that's a bad look. You'd be way more convincing if you just owned it - honest villainy is at least honest.

And those fifty Senators represent far fewer people than the fifty Democratic senators. I'm sure you already knew that though, being that you're in favor of minority rule. Bold of you to admit that democracy is the same thing as villainy in your mind.

 

[KingVamp]

The nefarious plan of giving yourself free Senators by signing a bill, and giving yourself Supreme Justices by signing another bill, yes. Fortunately they will fail at both since they lack the votes for either proposal, but the fact that they're attempting it alone should be a wakey wakey signal to some people who were napping for the last couple of years. You talk a lot about fascism, and here you are - singing praises of the party that is literally attempting to gain control of the entirety of the government not because it was elected to control all of it, but because they say so. If by some bizarre twist of fate they somehow do manage to pack the court, I hope every single Republican administration adds the same amount of seats plus one going forward. Why not? It's free seats, who cares.

We wouldn't even be discussing the Supreme Justices, if Republicans wasn't playing games with court in the first place. Sure, the parties are just going to make states every time they are in power, when we barely can get 2 after years. (Potentially.)

Ah yes, the good 'ol "right thing for the wrong reasons" spiel. Nah, give it back to Maryland, that's where the land belongs.

At least admitted you don't care what the people actually want.

 

[Foxi4]

And those fifty Senators represent far fewer people than the fifty Democratic senators. I'm sure you already knew that though, being that you're in favor of minority rule. Bold of you to admit that democracy is the same thing as villainy in your mind.

Let it be stated for the record, the first proposal to make DC a state was introduced in Congress in 1888, by Sen. Henry W. Blair, a Republican. Hearings began in 1921 when the bill was introduced by Sen. Wesley L. Jones, a Republican. The Democrats weren't interested in any of it until 1993 when Bill Clinton was President, then went hush-hush until 2014 when Obama was in charge. Casual observation, but it would seem that they only want it when it gives them more power, how curious. Thankfully Republicans are not stupid enough to fall for that - they threw the bill out in 93 and they'll throw it out now. If you're going to do something for DC, it should be done for the citizens, not because it's politically expedient.

We wouldn't even be discussing the Supreme Justices, if Republicans wasn't playing games with court in the first place. Sure, the parties are just going to make states every time they are in power, when we barely can get 2 after years. (Potentially.)

You mean filling in vacancies. Give people a big, juicy doughnut on a mouse trap and you're sure to find some that will go right for it.

 

[smf]

No, I don't know what you're saying. Let's do a little math here before we get lost in the weeds.

$590k + $510k + $1.4m = $2.5m

Before you get too excited, you were talking about the property that she bought after starting the charity. The 1.4m purchase is recent, not 13 years ago when the charity was started.

your opinion is what's irrelevant here

No, your boastful claims about being good at spotting scams is irrelevant and quite clearly unfounded arrogance.

the fact that she conjured up capital well in excess of 2 million dollars on what appears to be a whim *is* suspect.

You're saying you have evidence they were bought for cash? As she's repeatedly stated, she's got multiple streams of income. She could have a mortgage.

It's certainly not on a whim when you purchase 3 houses over more than a decade. For someone in her position it is not a lot of money. You're obviously jealous.

If you want to accuse the black NYC head of BLM of racism against her fellow black BLM member, you go on ahead.

No thank you. Racism is a serious allegation to throw around and I don't do that without careful and accurate evaluation. He might have other political reasons to go after her, but you know there is nothing to stop someone from being racist against their own race right? I have spoken with plenty of people who think they are the only decent one from their entire country.

 

[Xzi]

Let it be stated for the record, the first proposal to make DC a state was introduced in Congress in 1888, by Sen. Henry W. Blair, a Republican.

So back before Republicans were Republicans. Got it.

Casual observation, but it would seem that they only want it when it gives them more power, how curious.

I'm 99% sure there were a least a few statehood bills sitting in McConnell's legislative graveyard during the Trump era. And you seem to be under the false impression that whoever controls the federal government when DC is given statehood would automatically receive those House and Senate seats. That's not the case. There would be elections/special elections to pick their representatives just like any other state. So I'm not sure what you think kicking the can down the road will accomplish here.

 

[KingVamp]

Let it be stated for the record, the first proposal to make DC a state was introduced in Congress in 1888, by Sen. Henry W. Blair, a Republican. Hearings began in 1921 when the bill was introduced by Sen. Wesley L. Jones, a Republican. The Democrats weren't interested in any of it until 1993 when Bill Clinton was President, then went hush-hush until 2014 when Obama was in charge. Casual observation, but it would seem that they only want it when it gives them more power, how curious.

Then they would have already gotten statehood under Obama.

If you're going to do something for DC, it should be done for the citizens, not because it's politically expedient.

The citizens want statehood. In fact, it is politically expedient to not give them statehood. If you actually cared, your "solution" wouldn't be to ignore both what DC and Maryland actually want.

You mean filling in vacancies. Give people a big, juicy doughnut on a mouse trap and you're sure to find some that will go right for it.

Filling out vacancies is all they did. That's why Obama got all his picks.

 

[Foxi4]

Before you get too excited, you were talking about the property that she bought after starting the charity. The 1.4m purchase is recent, not 13 years ago when the charity was started.

No, your boastful claims about being good at spotting scams is irrelevant and quite clearly unfounded arrogance.

You're saying you have evidence they were bought for cash? As she's repeatedly stated, she's got multiple streams of income.

It's certainly not on a whim when you purchase 3 houses over more than a decade. For someone in her position it is not a lot of money. You're obviously jealous.

No thank you. Racism is a serious allegation to throw around and I don't do that without careful and accurate evaluation.

So you're not going to answer a simple yes or no question. Alright then. My claim was, I quote:

Over the course of the last few years Patrisse Cullors purchased two smaller properties in LA, a 3.2 acre property in Georgia and recently a $1.4m compound in LA. Her current housing portfolio is worth in excess of $3m, and presumably it will keep growing.

This statement is 100% correct. BLM Network was started by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi in 2013 - 8 years ago, not 13. I consider $3+ million in real estate spending in 8 years to be "within the last few years". Since we cannot have an agreement on that, the rest of the conversation is pointless and I'll have no part in it.

So back before Republicans were Republicans. Got it.

I'm 99% sure there were a least a few statehood bills sitting in McConnell's legislative graveyard during the Trump era. And you seem to be under the false impression that whoever controls the federal government when DC is given statehood would automatically receive those House and Senate seats. That's not the case. There would be elections/special elections to pick their representatives just like any other state. So I'm not sure what you think kicking the can down the road will accomplish here.

The Senate has been pretty tight in terms of power balance for the last couple of years, and that's a good thing. Having it at effectively 50/50 is great. I'm unaware of any bills that have gotten anywhere near Congress besides the 2019 bill which was reintroduced this year, but I may be wrong - non-starters don't get reported on as much. I see it as a cynical power grab, but as I said earlier, it's cool if you think it's not one.

Filling out vacancies is all they did. That's why Obama got all his picks.

There was no legal obligation to confirm any of Obama's nominees. No laws were broken, historical precedent was followed.

 

[Xzi]

I see it as a cynical power grab, but as I said earlier, it's cool if you think it's not one.

Ultimately I don't care about the motivations in this case as much as I care about the outcome of all Americans (and American territories) receiving their due representation in government. The default Republican position is that these people deserve to go on perpetually unrepresented, and that's simply not acceptable.

 

[KingVamp]

Ultimately I don't care about the motivations in this case as much as I care about the outcome of all Americans (and American territories) receiving their due representation in government. The default Republican position is that these people deserve to go on perpetually unrepresented, and that's simply not acceptable.

Well, to be fair, if the territories want to stay territories, that's up to them.

 

[Xzi]

Well, to be fair, if the territories want to stay territories, that's up to them.

True, but I don't think there's strong support for maintaining the status quo either. The people who want to remain in territories probably want taxes to be reduced or eliminated, which is understandable but unlikely to happen.

 

[Hanafuda]

Washington D.C. is land that the state of Maryland ceded to the US government for the purpose of a Constitutionally mandated federal district as the seat of the Federal government. It's a conditional grant. Virginia also ceded land for this (D.C. was originally a complete square shape), but the land was later returned to Virginia. If the Federal government stops using Maryland's land for the capital, that land reverts to Maryland. The residents would then have representation in Congress by virtue of Maryland's Congressional delegation and senators.

 

[Xzi]

If the Federal government stops using Maryland's land for the capital, that land reverts to Maryland. The residents would then have representation in Congress by virtue of Maryland's Congressional delegation and senators.

Foxi pointed out that Maryland doesn't want the land back, so there's nothing preventing the federal government from claiming full ownership over it.

 

[Foxi4]

True, but I don't think there's strong support for maintaining the status quo either. The people who want to remain in territories probably want taxes to be reduced or eliminated, which is understandable but unlikely to happen.

Spoiler

TAXATION IS THEFT! REEEEEE!

Washington D.C. is land that the state of Maryland ceded to the US government for the purpose of a Constitutionally mandated federal district as the seat of the Federal government. It's a conditional grant. Virginia also ceded land for this (D.C. was originally a complete square shape), but the land was later returned to Virginia. If the Federal government stops using Maryland's land for the capital, that land reverts to Maryland. The residents would then have representation in Congress by virtue of Maryland's Congressional delegation and senators.

This is the correct solution with historical precedent, regardless of any objections Maryland might have.

 

[Xzi]

Spoiler

View attachment 260052
TAXATION IS THEFT! REEEEEE!

In this case yes, DC and territories aren't really receiving anything in return. It's taxation without representation, a concept that all Americans used to vehemently oppose.

 

[Foxi4]

In this case... *Flashbang-like whistling in my ears*

In general.

 

[Hanafuda]

Foxi pointed out that Maryland doesn't want the land back, so there's nothing preventing the federal government from claiming full ownership over it.

I don't think real property law works that way. Title to the land would revert to Maryland regardless of what their current Democrat politicians want.

If following the law had any role in what's going in there. It doesn't though, so who knows what comes of it.

 

[Xzi]

I don't think real property law works that way. Title to the land would revert to Maryland regardless of what their current Democrat politicians want.

Maryland forfeits the title to the land and then it reverts back to Maryland? I doubt that very much.

If we're talking about tyranny, then the federal government forcing a state to take back land it doesn't want and isn't prepared to take care of/maintain is pretty high up on the list of dick moves.

 

[Foxi4]

Maryland forfeits the title to the land and then it reverts back to Maryland? I doubt that very much.

If we're talking about tyranny, then the federal government forcing a state to take back land it doesn't want and isn't prepared to take care of/maintain is pretty high up on the list of dick moves.

This will come as a shock, but when you have a tenant and that tenant leaves, you still own the house. You still have to pay for upkeep, you still have to pay property tax, it doesn't really matter if you put it back on the market or not. You can abandon it all you like, it's still yours until you sell it. If Maryland "forfeits" the land, the U.S. Government doesn't magically get to decide that it owns that land now - it would become no man's land, if that's even an option at all. Do you expect it to become a whole new country, then ask the U.S. Government to enter the union and finally become federalised? That would take some time and isn't realistic.

 

[Xzi]

This will come as a shock, but when you have a tenant and that tenant leaves, you still own the house.

Unless you sign over the deed to the house, yes. Which will have to be done with the land title between Maryland and the federal government, assuming that's not something that's already been done in one form or another. I'd have to double-check on that.

 

[Foxi4]

Unless you sign over the deed to the house, yes. Which will have to be done with the land title between Maryland and the federal government, assuming that's not something that's already been done in one form or another. I'd have to double-check on that.

That would just make DC federal land in perpetuity. Pursuant to Article 4, Congress has the right to buy, sell and regulate federal lands, I'm not sure it has the right to abandon them. It would be the first time in history the U.S. Government has generated a new state out of thin air. Pursuant to the same Article, the government has the right to admit new states into the union, but it's unclear whether it can just generate them using the land it owns. If that were the case, the fed owns 640 million acres of land, 28% of the whole country - ripe for new states whenever an administration feels like pulling two new senators out of a hat. If this comes to pass as the new status quo, I am perfectly happy with the Republicans starting a New California Republic or two somewhere in a national park, inhabited solely by bears.