Jump to content
270soft Forum
Presidentinsertname

State of jefferson poll.

Should this become a real thing?  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Should this become a real thing?



Recommended Posts

I'd probably only be for it if Puerto Rico became a state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I'd probably only be for it if Puerto Rico became a state

Yeah, creating a state just for one party seems rather brash and irresponsible. But i accept your compromise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

Now they are red counties on the left coast (see what I did there)) since they are never going to elect a republican {insert senator and or other statewide office here} maybe they should form there own state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)

If one is going to break off a piece of a polity, either to be a fully independent nation, or a new sub-national administrative subdivision, especially in a federal system of national-regional government relationship, there should be more and profound reasons for such other than the frustrations of a political party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I'd probably only be for it if Puerto Rico became a state

 

1 minute ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

 

Yeah, creating a state just for one party seems rather brash and irresponsible. But i accept your compromise. 

But I wouldn't accept it. It sounds remarkably and suspiciously like the Missouri Compromise. I would demand more reasons, needs, and honest grievances from this "State of Jefferson," and Puerto Rico to live up to being able to hold it's economy together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

 

But I wouldn't accept it. It sounds remarkably and suspiciously like the Missouri Compromise. I would demand more reasons, needs, and honest grievances from this "State of Jefferson," and Puerto Rico to live up to being able to hold it's economy together.

Far enough. If there is a cultural reason for the split, I would support it. A more perfect example would be if New York were to split into two. Upstate New York is culturally, and economically disconnected from the NYC region. If Upstate were to gather enough votes within the state, and national support; I could see the partition of the state along the Duchess County line. However, such a partition would require the two new states to resolve potential issues such as: water rights, location of prisons, revenue from the state toll ways, funding for the SUNY system, and so on.  

And if they were to resolve those issues in a manner much better than PM May handling Brexit, I would probably accept a state centralized in Upstate New York. Jefferson, I'm iffy on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Far enough. If there is a cultural reason for the split, I would support it. A more perfect example would be if New York were to split into two. Upstate New York is culturally, and economically disconnected from the NYC region. If Upstate were to gather enough votes within the state, and national support; I could see the partition of the state along the Duchess County line. However, such a partition would require the two new states to resolve potential issues such as: water rights, location of prisons, revenue from the state toll ways, funding for the SUNY system, and so on.  

And if they were to resolve those issues in a manner much better than PM May handling Brexit, I would probably accept a state centralized in Upstate New York. Jefferson, I'm iffy on.

Brexit is only really a good analog if you had a "full peaceful secession" of a state or region, not further subdivision, but remaining within the Union. In all of Canadian history since our Confederation in 1867, the only breaking up of sub-national administrative divisions formally have been territories (the NWT broken up into the Province of Manitoba in 1870, the Yukon Territory in 1898, the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905, and Nunavut in 1999, and increases to the territory of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec in first 1892 then more in 1912 - needless to say, when the NWT was first acquired by Canada from the HBC, it was HUGE, but very sparsely populated, before all that territory was broken off), but never a full Province has been broken up such, and many Canadian Provinces claim significant cultural differences by region within. Plus, keep in mind, many of these regional cultural and political differences are not permanent or even necessarily always long-term - internal migrations changes many of these things, often quicker than one might think. I, myself, wouldn't be too hasty with such divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

 

Yeah, creating a state just for one party seems rather brash and irresponsible. But i accept your compromise. 

If Republicans circa 1870 listened to this advice, we might be missing a few states - Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho spring to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lyly said:

If Republicans circa 1870 listened to this advice, we might be missing a few states - Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho spring to mind.

Indeed, that is true, and, if it weren't for party politics and maximization and consolidation of party strongholds, Alberta and Saskatchewan would have likely been made as one Province, not two, 1905, here in Canada as well. I myself, while I pointed this exact same error on the post above where you quoted @Sunnymentoaddict, can only advise and give a practical opinion for the future going forward, not to retcon the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2017 at 2:25 PM, Lyly said:

If Republicans circa 1870 listened to this advice, we might be missing a few states - Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho spring to mind.

or dc wouldnt have been made a state

 

On 12/26/2017 at 2:31 PM, Patine said:

Indeed, that is true, and, if it weren't for party politics and maximization and consolidation of party strongholds, Alberta and Saskatchewan would have likely been made as one Province, not two, 1905, here in Canada as well. I myself, while I pointed this exact same error on the post above where you quoted @Sunnymentoaddict, can only advise and give a practical opinion for the future going forward, not to retcon the past.

glad they werent it would look ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

or dc wouldnt have been made a state

 

glad they werent it would look ugly.

1. D.C. isn't a state it can't elect representatives or senators

 

 

2. I don't even know what you're trying to say, what do you mean it would look ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2017 at 1:50 PM, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Far enough. If there is a cultural reason for the split, I would support it. A more perfect example would be if New York were to split into two. Upstate New York is culturally, and economically disconnected from the NYC region. If Upstate were to gather enough votes within the state, and national support; I could see the partition of the state along the Duchess County line. However, such a partition would require the two new states to resolve potential issues such as: water rights, location of prisons, revenue from the state toll ways, funding for the SUNY system, and so on.  

And if they were to resolve those issues in a manner much better than PM May handling Brexit, I would probably accept a state centralized in Upstate New York. Jefferson, I'm iffy on.

There's a movement here to divide New York into two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WVProgressive said:

1. D.C. isn't a state it can't elect representatives or senators

 

 

2. I don't even know what you're trying to say, what do you mean it would look ugly.

That's called the "feeble and desperate lashing out of a proud person whose thoroughly lost a debate and knows it, but refuses to admit it." At that point, rebuttals by such people tend to get ridiculous and pointless like above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

There's a movement here to divide New York into two.

Yes, and from what I've heard, it's based on mostly partisan division than any practical reasons to do so (because, as I've stated earlier in this thread, I, myself, would not consider a partisan divide alone to be sufficient grounds to divide a polity, especially one with the guaranteed autonomy and level of self-government of a U.S. State).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 12:12 PM, WVProgressive said:

1. D.C. isn't a state it can't elect representatives or senators

 

 

2. I don't even know what you're trying to say, what do you mean it would look ugly.

talking about the canada provinces. but i want your take on this your state and how it was form? jefferson would be a a west coats version of west Virginian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm okay with partitioning of states as long as:

1. It does not lead to a humanitarian crisis and civil rights crisis 

2. It does not lead to an economic crisis

3. It is wildly popular by the inhabitant of the proposed state

4. Over 50% of the current state (both those within and without the proposed state) are supportive of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

talking about the canada provinces. but i want your take on this your state and how it was form? jefferson would be a a west coats version of west Virginian.

Esthetics of borders should NEVER be a reason for firm political decisions. Also, how is this proposed "State of Jefferson" anything like a "West Coast version of West Virginia?" There's no civil war going on right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Esthetics of borders should NEVER be a reason for firm political decisions. Also, how is this proposed "State of Jefferson" anything like a "West Coast version of West Virginia?" There's no civil war going on right now...

no but it look like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

talking about the canada provinces. but i want your take on this your state and how it was form? jefferson would be a a west coats version of west Virginian.

What happened in West Virginia had been brewing for a long time. Many of the issues that had led to split were the main reasons for the 1850 and 1829/30 constitutional conventions. This "State of Jefferson" seems nothing more than the most partisan of gerrymanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

What happened in West Virginia had been brewing for a long time. Many of the issues that had led to split were the main reasons for the 1850 and 1829/30 constitutional conventions. This "State of Jefferson" seems nothing more than the most partisan of gerrymanders.

Oh, my! What monstrous conventions! "Slavery must be preserved over any reform," and talking down to the common (non-slave-owning) man because of a lack of "stake in government," and the "maggot of innovation," and "ideological anarchy." This is just incredible! You'd never know by such lines these men had fought for independence and "liberty" from old British society, governance, mores, and mentality listening to all of this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Probably no but i voted yes on this poll.

The reason i might choose yes: 37m state is too big to be succesfully managed

The reason i might choose no: They're communists in CA and it will probably mean two more communist senators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dindu said:

Probably no but i voted yes on this poll.

The reason i might choose yes: 37m state is too big to be succesfully managed

The reason i might choose no: They're communists in CA and it will probably mean two more communist senators.

Another person who has no idea what Communism as an ideology or political viewpoint. If you had ANY education on the matter at all, you'd know well there isn't a single Communist in any position of power anywhere in the United States today, nor leading in any polls for any elected office. But, since calling "Communist" or "Nazi" (or, to a rapidly growing degree, "terrorist") is being done so often today in circumstance where their utterly inappropriate, false, inflammatory, slandering, or, at best, hyperbolic, the words are losing all meaning in the modern zeitgeist, and, eventually, after a while, will have NO credibility at all to call out these phenomena when they actually do happen. The story of "the Boy Who Cried Wolf," is very instructive here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Patine said:

Another person who has no idea what Communism as an ideology or political viewpoint. If you had ANY education on the matter at all, you'd know well there isn't a single Communist in any position of power anywhere in the United States today, nor leading in any polls for any elected office. But, since calling "Communist" or "Nazi" (or, to a rapidly growing degree, "terrorist") is being done so often today in circumstance where their utterly inappropriate, false, inflammatory, slandering, or, at best, hyperbolic, the words are losing all meaning in the modern zeitgeist, and, eventually, after a while, will have NO credibility at all to call out these phenomena when they actually do happen. The story of "the Boy Who Cried Wolf," is very instructive here.

look at how far left ca is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low-paying jobs located in the middle of huge overly expensive cities without decent public transit? So leftist. [/s]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

look at how far left ca is.

It's not that far left-wing from a global perspective. Besides, most of the areas where it leans sharply to the left politically are in social liberal, social welfare/safety net, egalitarian, and anti-militarist ideals, none of which are policies or ideals any bona fide Communist Party who has actually held government in a nation has ever espoused or followed (quite the opposite, in fact), except for egalitarian policies regarding economic social class, but, obviously, with all the billionaires living among dirt poor people in short distances from each other, that form of egalitarianism is NOT the strong area of California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×