I heard talk of up to 5 places that could become states , this is all exciting and new but why have we not seen anything about a new representative flag? Just curious maybe I am missing it but what do y’all think about the 5 possible places listed from most likely to least. Thanks ...this is not a thread to argue, just wanted some feedback on views. Thanks again https://www.traveltrivia.com/places-could-become-us-states/XqgZkXU1XQAGkiT5
DC can't become a state because of the Constitution. Also funny how all those places are likely to add to the Democrat voter base It is truly sick that people are pushing for a power grab by literally creating voters out of thin air because they know they can't rig an election a second time in the same egregious manner as this past year
* Puerto Rico: Don't think they should continue as a territory. Either become a state or leave the US. I don't really want to keep the artifacts of our colonial past. * Guam and the other far-flung island territories: Not worthy of 2 senators. But I'm conflicted on what our relationship to them should actually be. * NYC: No, that's ridiculous. * Virgin Islands: Can't they just be part of the state of Puerto Rico? * DC: I'd rather not. We made it a non-state on purpose. If you want more representation, move to Baltimore. * The flag: Cap it at 50.
[QUOTE="JuanValdez] * The flag: Cap it at 50.[/QUOTE] We don’t need 2 dakotas. Make Puerto Rico 50. Boom.
Agreed on Puerto Rico (and Virgin Islands). NYC as its own state isn't that ridiculous. Obviously population-wise it is huge. Throw in the rest of long island and it becomes bigger than Rhode Island geographically as well. The real problem with DC is why the heck do people live in DC? DC should literally be for government buildings only.
DC either needs to be a state or absorbed by Maryland. It's way past time for that. Puerto Rico is overdue for statehood too. Everything else is kind of dumb.
The virgin Islands look nice. Would bring some attractiveness back to the states. I've never been and I'm googling for a house/ population/ weather and crime rate like I'm going to move there. I just know Tim Duncan lived there. No wonder he was swimmer.
You can't get mad at a clown for acting like a clown, but you don't have to keep going to the circus.
I guess if Puerto Rico wants to maintain its current status, what's the real issue? Statehood has been on the table for decades. Historically Puerto Rico statehood was in the party platform of both the Republicans and Democrats (although clearly the Republicans no longer support this). The issue with Puerto Rico is that there is no real consensus so they are stuck. A plurality supports statehood but when you poll on 3 way referendums (statehood, independence or status quo), you don't get a majority on anything. Puerto Rico did have a referendum last year and 52% supported statehood. I'd argue that Congress should require 60% support for statehood in a referendum with a minimum turnout of 50% in order to move forward. Congress should really pass a law that outlines what exactly qualifies as a valid referendum to make this clear to Puerto Rico. Statehood is probably out of the question because of their population size but I'd propose the following: 1. Pass a law outlining referendum terms (similar to the Puerto Rico scenario but without statehood as an option). Options could include the status quo, full independence (severing all ties with the US) or independence with the compact of free association. For those who aren't familiar other former US territories in the Pacific were given a deal called the Compact of Free Association. The US basically got to keep military bases in those places in exchange for giving citizens of those new countries the right to live in the US as well as some yearly funding/aid from the US. But the big thing is that citizens in former territories still get the right to maintain ties to the US through the compact so if Guam, American Samoa or the Marianas Islands wants to opt for that option, they can. 2. If DC gets statehood, we actually end up with a weird quirk. DC has its electoral votes allocated by a constitutional amendment but if DC became a state, then you end up with two sets of electoral votes. One set would be for the state of DC and the set (derived from the amendment) would apply to the rump Capitol Complex district that would be left out of DC to comply with Constitutional requirements for a Capitol district. I'd propose that Congress pass a law to allocate the three electoral votes assigned to the Capitol complex to US territories. (maybe Puerto Rico/US Virgin Islands gets two of them and the Pacific territories gets the third). This at least gives US citizens in US territories some level of franchise since they could now vote for President. Agreed They are nothing alike culturally and don't even share the same language. That would be a huge downgrade for the US Virgin Islands. They can have a referendum and vote on it if they want but I suspect it would fail overwhelmingly. The Virgin Islands would probably want to keep its current status. I disagree entirely. Sometimes the framers are wrong. Their reason for excluding them from a state was because they didn't want DC to be subservient to a state government but they didn't really think through the idea of DC itself being a state because it was a largely unpopulated square of land. No one envisioned that DC was going to become a densely populated city. And it would give two senators that represent both Urban and African American constituencies. If we're going to just accept other states with low population, it is illogical to me why DC can't have statehood. Also, this isn't just about representation. DC's government can't pass a law without risking Congress just overriding it. All of DC's power is just de-evolved from Congress so Republicans routinely just override the elected DC government or screw up their budgets on purpose. The DC government is completely hamstrung every time Republicans have any control in Congress. And frankly, the framers made bad decisions on several front. We've fixed many of those over time (slavery, voting rights, equal protection, taxation, etc..) And on this front, they made a bad decision as well. I don't have much of an opinion on this but I'm fine with potentially adding stars. We've had odd numbered flags before.[/QUOTE]
Such inspiring goals you have for the Republican Party when it’s just assumed that because a new state has racial diversity that it’s assumed a Democrat slam dunk. How about your party just stop being racist and expand a electoral strategy. Seems much more reasonable than taxation without representation. Puerto Rican’s were left to die and without basic essential federal help after devastation for one reason and one reason alone... they didn’t have a single electoral vote for Donald Trump to worry about and no senators to lobby for help.
