• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New states?

New states?

  • Total voters
    27
(R)IGHTeous 1

(R)IGHTeous 1

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Location
southeast PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since there's a poll thread on secession, I figured we should explore the opposite too.

What if an unprecedented, sudden, popular push began for immediate Puerto Rican admission into the Union? What if other territories like our Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, (not sure if they all share the exact same status as PR) etc. all suddenly shared the same, strong, ASAP admission sentiment?

How would this affect our Union? Would you support it?
 
Last edited:
If any of the territories want statehood or independence or statehood, they have a right to it.
 
rathi said:
If any of the territories want statehood or independence or statehood, they have a right to it.
Click to expand...

I would agree.....even knowing that without our propping them up.....they would all become improvised, 3rd world nations like Jamaica overnight......
 
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
Since there's a poll thread on secession, I figured we should explore the opposite too.

What if an unprecedented, sudden, popular push began for immediate Puerto Rican admission into the Union? What if other territories like our Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, (not sure if they all share the exact same status as PR) etc. all suddenly shared the same, strong, ASAP admission sentiment?

How would this affect our Union? Would you support it?
Click to expand...

If any territory wants to be a state I say let them. I would support it assuming we have had the territory for a certain length of time.
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
If any of the territories want statehood or independence or statehood, they have a right to it.
Click to expand...

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
I would agree.....even knowing that without our propping them up.....they would all become improvised, 3rd world nations like Jamaica overnight......
Click to expand...

jamesrage said:
If any territory wants to be a state I say let them. I would support it assuming we have had the territory for a certain length of time.
Click to expand...

Can I quote you guys on that in support of DC statehood? Cuz we really need it.
 
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
I would agree.....even knowing that without our propping them up.....they would all become improvised, 3rd world nations like Jamaica overnight......
Click to expand...

The same can be said of many US states.
 
I'm not necessarily opposed to statehood for some territories, but I think it would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Personally I suggest that rather starting with US territories - some of which have different languages, a relatively low level of economic development and/or a tepid commitment to statehood - we should start by granting statehood to an entity located within the continental US, which has consistently favored statehood by overwhelming margins, and which is more subjected to the whims of Congress than any actual state, let alone territories.

I'm referring of course to my home, the District of Columbia.
 
Paschendale said:
Can I quote you guys on that in support of DC statehood? Cuz we really need it.
Click to expand...

Honestly?? I don't know why DC isn't a state.. It seems somewhat lame that our nations capital isn't even a state..
 
DemonMyst said:
Honestly?? I don't know why DC isn't a state.. It seems somewhat lame that our nations capital isn't even a state..
Click to expand...

There was a reason for that. You should try googling it.
 
Paschendale said:
Can I quote you guys on that in support of DC statehood? Cuz we really need it.
Click to expand...


DC is the capital so no. There is a reason our forefathers did not want it to have the same status as a state.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
DC is the capital so no. There is a reason our forefathers did not want it to have the same status as a state.
Click to expand...

Our forefathers can go **** themselves. Their reasons for not wanting DC statehood 200 years ago are not a good enough reason to deny DC residents the right to a representative democracy today.
 
jamesrage said:
DC is the capital so no. There is a reason our forefathers did not want it to have the same status as a state.
Click to expand...

I don't think they wanted a large city there either. Kind of funny how no one paying them any mind gets people no representation. Funny how that works..:)
 
Kandahar said:
Our forefathers can go **** themselves. Their reasons for not wanting DC statehood 200 years ago are not a good enough reason to deny DC residents the right to a representative democracy today.
Click to expand...

Like I just said there never was supposed to be a big city there.
 
Kandahar said:
Our forefathers can go **** themselves. Their reasons for not wanting DC statehood 200 years ago are not a good enough reason to deny DC residents the right to a representative democracy today.
Click to expand...

This is what is wrong with libs. No regard for our founding forefathers of their intentions.
 
Kandahar said:
Well there is, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea why there never was supposed to be big city there? Maybe because it wasn't supposed to be job. :D Maybe if you didn't make it a job to work in the capital there would be no city? You know pay the founders intentions in mind and maybe this wouldn't be a problem. I have no willingness to give you anything if you aren't going to pay attention.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
This is what is wrong with libs. No regard for our founding forefathers of their intentions.
Click to expand...

They were not omnipotent gods who had the answer to every political issue, they were human beings who were products of their era (which happened to be the 1760s-1790s) and often made mistakes.
 
jamesrage said:
This is what is wrong with libs. No regard for our founding forefathers of their intentions.
Click to expand...

Agreed, they came up with some pretty solid ideas between banging their slaves.
 
Kandahar said:
They were not omnipotent gods who had the answer to every political issue, they were human beings who were products of their era (which happened to be the 1760s-1790s) and often made mistakes.
Click to expand...

This wasn't their mistake nor did they overlook it. You ignored them, and here you are. Its seems like you caused your problem by your unwillingness to obey by the rules of the constitution.
 
Henrin said:
Do have any idea why there never was supposed to be big city there?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Do you really think that the Founding Fathers planned out where every big city should be 200 years hence?

Maybe because it wasn't supposed to be job. :D Maybe if you didn't make it a job to work in the capital there would be no city?
Click to expand...

Over the past 200 years the people have elected governments which require more and more employees. If you don't like it, don't blame the residents of DC, blame the voters who elected all those Congresses. Which, incidentally, DC residents had nothing to do with, as we can't vote for Congress.

You know pay the founders intentions in mind and maybe this wouldn't be a problem. I have no willingness to give you anything if you aren't going to pay attention.
Click to expand...

Please show me the passage in the Constitution where the population of the District of Columbia is capped by law, and every additional resident is banned from entering.
 
Swizz said:
Agreed, they came up with some pretty solid ideas between banging their slaves.
Click to expand...


The only attack on the founders I have seen in a great deal of time. Kind of sad that is all people have.
 
Henrin said:
This wasn't their mistake nor did they overlook it. You ignored them, and here you are. Its seems like you caused your problem by your unwillingness to obey by the rules of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Which rule in the Constitution would that be? Is there some clause that makes it illegal for people to move to the District of Columbia of which I am unaware?
 
Last edited:
What do you mean, I just praised their ideas
 
Henrin said:
The only attack on the founders I have seen in a great deal of time. Kind of sad that is all people have.
Click to expand...

What is kind of sad is that human beings (politicians, no less) who lived 200 years ago are so revered today by people who don't want to think for themselves.
 
Kandahar said:
Irrelevant. Do you really think that the Founding Fathers planned out where every big city should be 200 years hence?
Click to expand...

Talking of irrelevant.

Over the past 200 years the people have elected governments which require more and more employees. If you don't like it, don't blame the residents of DC, blame the voters who elected all those Congresses. Which, incidentally, DC residents had nothing to do with, as we can't vote for Congress.
Click to expand...

Haha, so you admit they didn't overlook it. They limited the powers, powers that have since been ignored allowing the capital to grow.


Please show me the passage in the Constitution where the population of the District of Columbia is capped by law, and every additional resident is banned from entering.
Click to expand...

Like I said if you wish to ignore the intentions and live in place with no representation that is your choice, but don't cry to me about it. I have nothing to feel for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom