Reply With Quote
It's re ed.
That proves what? Spell it out.
While you're at it, do tell how all the doctors in the world got together to fake deaths for your 'scam'. Just think before you post, smh.
It's re ed.
Keep pretending to think that. You already know I know.
You are hallucinating, Base.
DC only has 720,000 actual residents. TWO STATES?
If there can be two Dakotas, there can be two DCs. There's no population or landmass requirement in the cons ution.
You are hallucinating, Base.
DC only has 720,000 actual residents. TWO STATES?
A cons utional amendment that makes it so Wyoming and California don't get the same amount of senators would make a lot more sense, but since that's something Republicans depend on for minority rule and would never go along with, chopping up heavily Democratic areas in multiple states is the next best option.
$100 million lawsuit involving top Trump campaign strategist before possible Supreme Court pick
Trump appointee Barbara Lagoa reportedly appeared "friendlier" to campaign strategist Jason Miller in a court case
A AFlorida judge rumored to be on short list of nominees to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death is currently hearing
a $100 million lawsuit from one of President Donald Trump's top campaign strategists.
Judge Barbara Lagoa was appointed to Florida's 11th Circuit Court of Appeals less than one year ago by Trump.
She is one of two Trump appointees on a three-judge panel which will decide whether the effort by the president's senior campaign strategist Jason Miller to revive a $100 million defamation suit against Gizmodo may advance.
The two Trump-appointed judges on the panel — Lagoa and Andrew Brasher — "seemed friendlier to Miller's case,"
For a Supreme Court nominee,
Lagoa's judicial experience would be thin by historical standards.
Lagoa has about nine months of experience on the federal bench, and
she previously served for less than one year on Florida's Supreme Court.
Lagoa is also currently ruling on a challenge to a Florida law requiring anyone with a serious criminal conviction to pay all fines and legal obligations before they can vote. Florida is a key swing state in the 2020 elections.
Lagoa's potential conflicts of interest in that case may go beyond her connection to Trump.
During her short stint on Florida's Supreme Court, the judge ruled to reverse a decision invalidating the felon voting law.
She argues that the federal case is different from the state-level case, which some see as a gray area when it comes to recusal.
https://www.salon.com/2020/09/21/100...me-court-pick/
So Trash's corrupt politicized judges are to rule on a case about one of Trash's officials, and whether FL felons can vote.
No Law Is Above The Man
Using North and South Dakota as your analogy is just dumb as . Check your history, scooter.
you should never call into question anyone else’s intelligence. He didn’t inherit a business like you did. He’s made it on his own.
and you’re fear and trumperism is showing.
Go suck another , Boner. Keep this up and it will be an ISP ban next time.
What history should I check? The Dakotas were admitted as two states because Republicans wanted to stack the senate and wouldn't go along with admitting Dakota as one state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory
Admission of new western states was a party political battleground with each party looking at how the proposed new states were likely to vote. At the beginning of 1888, the Democrats under president Grover Cleveland proposed that the four territories of Montana, New Mexico, Dakota and Washington should be admitted together. The first two were expected to vote Democratic and the latter two were expected to vote Republican so this was seen as a compromise acceptable to both parties. However, the Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate later that year. To head off the possibility that Congress might only admit Republican territories to statehood, the Democrats agreed to a less favorable deal in which Dakota was divided in two and New Mexico was left out altogether. Cleveland signed it into law on February 22, 1889, and the territories could become states in nine months time after that.
wikipedia
The Dakota Territory was formed in 1861—including what we now think of as North Dakota and South Dakota, as well as parts of Wyoming and Montana—and took on the boundaries of the two Dakotas in 1868. It was entirely expected that such territories would eventually join the U.S. as states after meeting certain requirements, like hitting a population count of more than 60,000 and drafting a state cons ution.
So why did the two halves of the territory reach statehood separately?
Steven Bucklin, a professor of history at the University of South Dakota, points to regional differences in trade routes and population size as the two main factors. Those differences, with the addition of some territorial government politics, meant the populations felt some resentment for each other. Or, as Kimberly Porter, a history professor at the University of North Dakota, puts it, “the south half did not like the north half.”
(While we’re going to focus on why there are two Dakotas, it’s worth noting that they’re not the only states to share a name—the Carolinas separated in the first half of the 18th century, and West Virginia split from Virginia during the civil war because delegates from the western part of the state opposed secession.)
In terms of population size, the two parts of the territory were different from the beginning. There were always more people in the southern part of Dakota territory, which grew from about 10,000 in 1870 to about over 98,000 in 1880. By that point, according to the U.S. census, northern Dakota was home to only about 37,000 people. That meant that southern Dakota had the population necessary to join as a state, all on its own, years before the northern part of the state did.
Perhaps not coincidentally, there was also a bit of a personality difference between the two regions: the south thought the north was a bit disreputable, Porter says, “too much controlled by the wild folks, cattle ranchers, fur traders” and too frequently the site of conflict with the indigenous population.
Meanwhile, a year after the Dakota territory was formed, the Homestead Act passed. This new law encouraged settlement in the West, as did railroads that connected new farmers to markets for their crops. But the trade routes supported by these railroads connected North and South Dakota to different commercial hubs, says Bucklin. The northern part of Dakota territory became more closely tied to Minneapolis-St. Paul, via Fargo and Bismarck. In contrast, the southern counties along the Missouri and Big Sioux rivers were more closely tied by trade to Sioux City, and from there to Omaha or over to Chicago. These diverging economic ties left residents of different parts of the territory less connected to each other.
In terms of politics, the way the territory system was set up, legislators were appointed by the federal government in Washington, D.C., and tended to remain in the region only while they served their terms. The larger population of the southern region began to resent those “carpetbaggers,” Bucklin says, but the northerners tended to emphasize that it was cheaper to be a territory, with the feds funding a wide range of state functions. It didn’t help that the state legislators were sometimes notoriously corrupt—like Nehemiah Ordway, who moved the capital in 1883. “He essentially helped steal the state territorial capital from Yankton, now in South Dakota, to Bismarck, now in North Dakota” says Porter. The capital grab, which moved the capital even farther from the majority of the population, only fueled more resentment from the south.
By that point, South Dakotans had the necessary population for statehood and quickly moved to become an independent state. However, many attempts to form an independent state failed, Porter says, as the federal response was “either do it as one very large state, Dakota, or wait until you have enough people on both sides to be two separate states.”
That second option would play out before the decade was over. But why did they both choose to keep the name “Dakota”?
South Dakota wanted to be called simply “Dakota” Porter says, and “then the northern half would become either the territory of Pembina, which is a community right on the Canadian border, or else they thought we could be called the territory and ultimately state of Lincoln, as in the president.” But Porter says Dakota had already become a trademark of sorts—a source of quality products, “like California raisins or Florida orange juice”—and neither side wanted to give it up.
On Nov. 2, 1889 President Benjamin Harrison signed the papers to admit North and South Dakota as two separate states, along with Montana and Washington. Though North Dakota is generally considered the 39th state to South Dakota’s 40th state, it’s actually unclear which one was admitted first says Bucklin: “apparently President Harrison shuffled the paperwork first,” and signed the do ents blindly.
https://time.com/4377423/dakota-nort...h-history-two/
There's this thing called the house of representatives. Civics fail
gerrymandering good now
wikipedia
The Dakota Territory was formed in 1861—including what we now think of as North Dakota and South Dakota, as well as parts of Wyoming and Montana—and took on the boundaries of the two Dakotas in 1868. It was entirely expected that such territories would eventually join the U.S. as states after meeting certain requirements, like hitting a population count of more than 60,000 and drafting a state cons ution.
So why did the two halves of the territory reach statehood separately?
Steven Bucklin, a professor of history at the University of South Dakota, points to regional differences in trade routes and population size as the two main factors. Those differences, with the addition of some territorial government politics, meant the populations felt some resentment for each other. Or, as Kimberly Porter, a history professor at the University of North Dakota, puts it, “the south half did not like the north half.”
(While we’re going to focus on why there are two Dakotas, it’s worth noting that they’re not the only states to share a name—the Carolinas separated in the first half of the 18th century, and West Virginia split from Virginia during the civil war because delegates from the western part of the state opposed secession.)
In terms of population size, the two parts of the territory were different from the beginning. There were always more people in the southern part of Dakota territory, which grew from about 10,000 in 1870 to about over 98,000 in 1880. By that point, according to the U.S. census, northern Dakota was home to only about 37,000 people. That meant that southern Dakota had the population necessary to join as a state, all on its own, years before the northern part of the state did.
Perhaps not coincidentally, there was also a bit of a personality difference between the two regions: the south thought the north was a bit disreputable, Porter says, “too much controlled by the wild folks, cattle ranchers, fur traders” and too frequently the site of conflict with the indigenous population.
Meanwhile, a year after the Dakota territory was formed, the Homestead Act passed. This new law encouraged settlement in the West, as did railroads that connected new farmers to markets for their crops. But the trade routes supported by these railroads connected North and South Dakota to different commercial hubs, says Bucklin. The northern part of Dakota territory became more closely tied to Minneapolis-St. Paul, via Fargo and Bismarck. In contrast, the southern counties along the Missouri and Big Sioux rivers were more closely tied by trade to Sioux City, and from there to Omaha or over to Chicago. These diverging economic ties left residents of different parts of the territory less connected to each other.
In terms of politics, the way the territory system was set up, legislators were appointed by the federal government in Washington, D.C., and tended to remain in the region only while they served their terms. The larger population of the southern region began to resent those “carpetbaggers,” Bucklin says, but the northerners tended to emphasize that it was cheaper to be a territory, with the feds funding a wide range of state functions. It didn’t help that the state legislators were sometimes notoriously corrupt—like Nehemiah Ordway, who moved the capital in 1883. “He essentially helped steal the state territorial capital from Yankton, now in South Dakota, to Bismarck, now in North Dakota” says Porter. The capital grab, which moved the capital even farther from the majority of the population, only fueled more resentment from the south.
By that point, South Dakotans had the necessary population for statehood and quickly moved to become an independent state. However, many attempts to form an independent state failed, Porter says, as the federal response was “either do it as one very large state, Dakota, or wait until you have enough people on both sides to be two separate states.”
That second option would play out before the decade was over. But why did they both choose to keep the name “Dakota”?
South Dakota wanted to be called simply “Dakota” Porter says, and “then the northern half would become either the territory of Pembina, which is a community right on the Canadian border, or else they thought we could be called the territory and ultimately state of Lincoln, as in the president.” But Porter says Dakota had already become a trademark of sorts—a source of quality products, “like California raisins or Florida orange juice”—and neither side wanted to give it up.
On Nov. 2, 1889 President Benjamin Harrison signed the papers to admit North and South Dakota as two separate states, along with Montana and Washington. Though North Dakota is generally considered the 39th state to South Dakota’s 40th state, it’s actually unclear which one was admitted first says Bucklin: “apparently President Harrison shuffled the paperwork first,” and signed the do ents blindly.
https://time.com/4377423/dakota-nort...h-history-two/
Yeah that's why the states themselves wanted to be divided (who wouldn't want more representation in congress), but having more Republicans is why congress signed off on it.
That article mentions a 60,000 population requirement. No worries on that front, north and south DC each have more than 60,000 people. DC meets the same requirements Dakota met to become two states
Yeah this argument makes no sense. If the house is ruled by majority and the senate by minority, it's still effectively minority rule if the house passes legislation that's blocked by the senate.
The house also has no say over judge confirmations, so it matters a lot less than the senate. Right now we have a supreme court seat about to get filled by a president who lost the popular vote and a GOP senate majority that represents a population minority. Not saying it shouldn't happen since those are currently the rules and the Democrats failed to win with them before you try to use that strawman, just saying the existence of the house by no means offsets the senate rule by minority.
If DC became a state at all the nation's capitol would then be in a state, not in a district.
Romney on board with McConnell & Co., not a chance they don't have the votes now.
The Dems should just be focused on making it so the GOP senators running for re-election need to spend more time in DC to get this done, but they're not going to be able to stop the inevitable. Let it be a lesson to how they need to manage the party going forward.
McConnell might be a piece of , but he's able to coalesce votes in a manner so quickly and efficiently you need to respect it.
Look how mad you are. I know you want people to think you’re some sort of success. But we all know you inherited everything you’ve ever gotten.
So you’re embarrassed for having your truth exposed too.
It has to be tough knowing when you die, the only your family will care about is what’s left of what you inherited.
Mitt Romney backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation
You get credit for the vivid imagination, but keep up the personal attacks and you will be history for good.
Mitt does have a future to think about. He’s still banking on Trump and his sect destroying the current incarnation of republican. There has to be someone there to assume leadership in that vacuum.
he would not be one of the people that you would think they’d turn to, but he has a lot of money and influence. He will buy his place at the table.
maybe you should stop telling other people they’re dumb, when it’s so obvious how insecure you truly are.
and you and I both know the truth about you. That’s what makes it so funny to watch you brag
so you’re saying garland should have been confirmed too, right?
We know the truth about you too.
He did not have the votes
Oh and if Mitch did not have the votes Romney would be a no
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
