United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[strunkenwhite]

Because they should be dealt with first, by order of precedence. Based upon their lack of status and representation (which DC differs in having such federal status).

So, in principle DC statehood is not an unreasonable proposition, you'd just rather let others skip ahead in line, so to speak?

I'm not aware that any territories other than Puerto Rico are currently pushing for statehood.

I personally agree with the idea of Puerto Rico gaining statehood before DC, but if the House and Senate bills aimed at doing exactly that get through committee, then it's just a matter of which vote happens first (or ever) and how fast the territory acts on it.

Yes, because the buildings are irrelevant. Those who work in them is the objection.

Distribute those people around the country and it becomes less of a problem because the federal bureaucracy is incorporated into multiple other state interest groups. As it stands, DC is a federal enclave of federal workers and those servicing them, not a state or a territory (and more influential in reality for it)

As I said, I don't think DC would be any worse in that regard than Virginia or Maryland, which surround DC and host any number of government departmental headquarters.

 

[Battlegrinder]

if the House and Senate bills aimed at doing exactly that get through committee, then it's just a matter of which vote happens first (or ever) and how fast the territory acts on it.

Puerto Rico hasn't actually said they want to be a state until last year. They've had a bunch of referendums on the issue, but only in 2020 did they get a majority even saying they wanted statehood. But the dems have been pushing it for a lot longer than that.



As for the question of DC, there's no particular reason to make it a state vs returning it to Maryland, but frankly I'm not inclined to do that either. Adding new states is a serious matter, and given the current push is being done entirely for partisan reasons, that's a good reason to not do it.

I'd also agree with the point @AndrewJTalon raised about security. The state of DC would be one of the most democrat leaning states in the union, with all of it's law enforcement and security services under democratic control. Given the riots and chaos last year, I think that alone is reason enough to have concerns about leaving federal institutions, offices, and residences under the "protection" of DC state police.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Puerto Rico hasn't actually said they want to be a state until last year. They've had a bunch of referendums on the issue, but only in 2020 did they get a majority even saying they wanted statehood. But the dems have been pushing it for a lot longer than that.

I'm not sure what you're basing the "a lot longer" on; there's a long history of both parties supporting statehood conditional on a referendum showing that to be the wish of the Puerto Rican people. As you say, it's only recently that a referendum has produced an unambiguous majority of any size at all. (Only stuff like, a majority don't want the status quo and a majority prefer statehood of the non-status-quo options.)

As for the question of DC, there's no particular reason to make it a state vs returning it to Maryland, but frankly I'm not inclined to do that either. Adding new states is a serious matter, and given the current push is being done entirely for partisan reasons, that's a good reason to not do it.

You don't support either option? The fuck?

I'd also agree with the point @AndrewJTalon raised about security. The state of DC would be one of the most democrat leaning states in the union, with all of it's law enforcement and security services under democratic control. Given the riots and chaos last year, I think that alone is reason enough to have concerns about leaving federal institutions, offices, and residences under the "protection" of DC state police.

I can understand that concern. The federal district itself would presumably still have Capitol Police. As for the places that would be in the jurisdiction of the new state, I suspect the Metropolitan Police Department of the District State of Columbia would carry on more or less as it has in the past. If you're more concerned about, say, the state deliberately not acting to protect federal property with the state national guard, keep in mind that the president can federalize it and assume command at need.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I'm not sure what you're basing the "a lot longer" on; there's a long history of both parties supporting statehood conditional on a referendum showing that to be the wish of the Puerto Rican people.

I've heard democrats actively calling for PR to be made a state for several years prior to 2020.

You don't support either option? The fuck?

I certainly don't support either option right now, no. In the long run, maybe giving it back to Maryland, but frankly, we managed things just fine without it being a state up until now, and it's only been a political issue in the past 20 years or so.

I can understand that concern. The federal district itself would presumably still have Capitol Police. As for the places that would be in the jurisdiction of the new state, I suspect the Metropolitan Police Department of the District State of Columbia would carry on more or less as it has in the past. If you're more concerned about, say, the state deliberately not acting to protect federal property with the state national guard, keep in mind that the president can federalize it and assume command at need.

The idea of the state not acting to protect property is just one issue. They could also stuff like unequally enforcement against protestors, not comply with requests for law enforcement resources. I recall some comments from national review last June when Trump was doing a photo op and needed to order the police to clear away some protesters, which the DC mayor didn't want to do. And the issue was that incidents like that could become more common if DC police were no longer under federal control. That's why the capital was moved to an independent district rather than being a set city in the first place.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

I've heard democrats actively calling for PR to be made a state for several years prior to 2020.



I certainly don't support either option right now, no. In the long run, maybe giving it back to Maryland, but frankly, we managed things just fine without it being a state up until now, and it's only been a political issue in the past 20 years or so.



The idea of the state not acting to protect property is just one issue. They could also stuff like unequally enforcement against protestors, not comply with requests for law enforcement resources. I recall some comments from national review last June when Trump was doing a photo op and needed to order the police to clear away some protesters, which the DC mayor didn't want to do. And the issue was that incidents like that could become more common if DC police were no longer under federal control. That's why the capital was moved to an independent district rather than being a set city in the first place.

That or cut off the utilities to federal buildings.

 

[strunkenwhite]

I've heard democrats actively calling for PR to be made a state for several years prior to 2020.

I didn't notice much of a partisan divide in PR statehood advocacy until the last few years, yes prior to 2020 but after Obama was out of office. Maybe partisanship had gotten to it before then but can you point me to information supporting that? I am happy to admit that 4 years is "a lot longer" than 1 year but that isn't the timeframe that your post had me imagining. If it was what you meant, then I suppose there is no true disagreement between us on that point.

As mentioned earlier, presidents from both parties have long promoted Puerto Rican self-determination and statehood; the most recent Republican party platform reads, "We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine."

I certainly don't support either option right now, no. In the long run, maybe giving it back to Maryland, but frankly, we managed things just fine without it being a state up until now, and it's only been a political issue in the past 20 years or so.

The DC statehood movement is a direct result of the failure of the DC Voting Rights Amendment (which would have given congressional representation but not statehood) to be ratified by the states after passing Congress. The seven year time limit expired in 1985. (I don't know how bipartisan that passage was, but it had to be to some extent based on the total up and down votes.) From what I can gather, the statehood movement was popular among DC residents but not taken too seriously elsewhere until it picked up steam in the past decade.

The idea of the state not acting to protect property is just one issue. They could also stuff like unequally enforcement against protestors, not comply with requests for law enforcement resources. I recall some comments from national review last June when Trump was doing a photo op and needed to order the police to clear away some protesters, which the DC mayor didn't want to do. And the issue was that incidents like that could become more common if DC police were no longer under federal control. That's why the capital was moved to an independent district rather than being a set city in the first place.

I know that the clearing of Lafayette Square etc. was done with officers from various federal agencies and not the DC police, but I did not know and was not able to immediately confirm that the mayor or DC police were asked to do it and declined. Could you give me a source on that? In any case, I'm not really impressed by that particular example of "need".

 

[Captain X]

Uh huh... How is giving direct representation to more people a move towards Communism or dictatorship?

Because it's not about giving anyone representation and you know it. It's about bypassing the Constitution and just forcing through whatever they want. They aren't even fucking hiding it anymore.

 

[Battlegrinder]

If it was what you meant, then I suppose there is no true disagreement between us on that point.

Yes, I meant like from 2018 onward or so, didn't mean to suggest it's been a thing for decades.

Could you give me a source on that?

I'm afraid I can't seem to find it, sorry.

In any case, I'm not really impressed by that particular example of "need".

I'll be the first to admit the pro state hood case is fairly compelling, and the counterarguements against it are a bit lackluster. That said, I veiw it as a case of using good logic to argue for a bad cause.

 

[LindyAF]

Yes, I meant like from 2018 onward or so, didn't mean to suggest it's been a thing for decades.

It was before that, PR statehood as an idea was getting positive reception from the left wing media at least back to 2012-2013.

 

[Megadeath]

"We don't like it because it's just a power play by the democrats so they can push their agenda that we think is dangerous and could ruin the country because their rhetoric Literally includes things about tearing down the whole system"

"Lulz guys what's so bad about democrats wanting to take more power?"

If you aren't aware of our problems with democrats, (and them getting more power,) by now, then you never will be.

"Guys why are you so against Hitler bolstering his power?"

I'm not calling democrats Nazis here, but I am making the point that if we think they are terrible then OF COURSE we are against measures that would solidy their power.

Which in no way answers the question! I get why people who align Republican don't like it. But "I don't like it because I support the other team." is a fairly crap argument. Worse even than the representation issue, because whilst that isn't the reason so much as an excuse, it means actual good will come of it.

Because it's not about giving anyone representation and you know it. It's about bypassing the Constitution and just forcing through whatever they want. They aren't even fucking hiding it anymore.

... FFS. SO? Yes, a political party is acting in a way that advantages their position. This is my shocked face. That's literally their entire job! To espouse and promote an agenda. That is, quite fundamentally, the entire point of a politician. It's what forms the mandate of the masses through their election. How in any way does that make it dictatorial or communist?

 

[strunkenwhite]

Which in no way answers the question! I get why people who align Republican don't like it. But "I don't like it because I support the other team." is a fairly crap argument. Worse even than the representation issue, because whilst that isn't the reason so much as an excuse, it means actual good will come of it.

I mean, hypothetically I could see an argument that went, "this may be an injustice but giving the other team what they want would enable much greater injustices." But I have not seen a justification for why this would happen as a result of statehood, other than the physical security argument (most recently articulated by Battlegrinder) which so far I've found unconvincing. The gain in Dem congressional representation (let's be honest, Senate representation) seems minor.

 

[Typhonis]

So....DC granted statehood. Does this mean that everyone living there has to pay State Taxes on top of city taxes? That you need a governor of DC along with the other important departments a state has that a city lacks? What about state troopers and national guard units?

In other words how much extra would the senators and reps, plus the president have to pay to live there?

 

[Robovski]

So....DC granted statehood. Does this mean that everyone living there has to pay State Taxes on top of city taxes? That you need a governor of DC along with the other important departments a state has that a city lacks? What about state troopers and national guard units?

In other words how much extra would the senators and reps, plus the president have to pay to live there?

Like Congress wouldn't vote themselves exempt from the taxes.

 

[Buba]

In other words how much extra would the senators and reps, plus the president have to pay to live there?

Not a penny.

Like Congress wouldn't vote themselves exempt from the taxes.

Exactly.
I believe that congresscritters are exempt from insider trading regulations - i.e. if a Senator hears from a collegue that tomorrow he will floor a proposal to subsidise industry X and rushes to buy shares in companies related with that industry than that is 100% legit.

 

[Largo]

Puerto Rico hasn't actually said they want to be a state until last year. They've had a bunch of referendums on the issue, but only in 2020 did they get a majority even saying they wanted statehood. But the dems have been pushing it for a lot longer than that.

The fact that Puerto Rico hasn't wholeheartedly endorsed that they want to be a state is the one reason why my support is only partial instead of total. But the fact that they got that majority is from my perspective good enough. Even if only say, 48% say they want to be a state, I seriously doubt the opposition to statehood is such that we're going to see terrorism or violence from those people. Besides the sooner they get used to be a state, the sooner they can be pacified.

 

[strunkenwhite]

I believe that congresscritters are exempt from insider trading regulations - i.e. if a Senator hears from a collegue that tomorrow he will floor a proposal to subsidise industry X and rushes to buy shares in companies related with that industry than that is 100% legit.

I believe that used to be true but is now outlawed. STOCK Act - Wikipedia

 

[Captain X]

... FFS. SO? Yes, a political party is acting in a way that advantages their position. This is my shocked face. That's literally their entire job! To espouse and promote an agenda. That is, quite fundamentally, the entire point of a politician. It's what forms the mandate of the masses through their election. How in any way does that make it dictatorial or communist?

Their actions. Look at what the parties members and its useful idiots have been doing. Their actions speak far louder than anything they can say. Pfft! Yeah, I mean, so what if they've bee repeatedly violating the Constitution and trying to position themselves so they can't be stopped from doing so - that's what all politicians do, right? Do you even listen to yourself?

 

[Battlegrinder]

The gain in Dem congressional representation (let's be honest, Senate representation) seems minor.

Er...no? Two new states, one of which is blue and the other of which is deep, deep, deep blue would be huge, that's at least 2 or 3 more senators and most likely 4. With increasing polarization, the number of competitive senate seats keeps shrinking, adding 4 more seats to one side means not only more votes for the dems, but that the republicans have to flip even more seats to regain control.

 

[Buba]

I believe that used to be true but is now outlawed. STOCK Act - Wikipedia

Thank you, now I'll know.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

How will Biden's climate plan affect everyday Americans

Joe Biden announced the goal to cut emissions by 2030, compared with 2005 levels, at the start of a two-day climate summit on Thursday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

are we sure this isn't the "Bring back feudalism" plan?

"Climate change" has become the new "Divine right."