| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
I dont believe there was a Civil War when we had Alaska and Hawaii enter as States. Idaho and Wyoming also did not cause a civil war when they entered the Union. Utah and Oklahoma also didn't seem to have caused civil wars. New Mexico and Arizona didnt either... Maybe the Civil War wasn't caused primarily by adding states, maybe it was due to other things... | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:37 Nevuk wrote: That is some wild causation and correlation. The Missouri Compromise was made to delay the civil war. It didn't CAUSE it. The vast majority of historians are in agreement that the Missouri Compromise was a huge impetus for the start of the civil war (increasing tensions, ramping up strife, etc.). Remember Lincoln said he'd never free slaves if he could maintain the Union and the Missouri Compromise was a big issue relating to this. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:44 Zambrah wrote: Your insistence that the Missouri Compromise means adding any states means civil war implies that any state added at any point in American history should have also had some sort of civil war attached. I dont believe there was a Civil War when we had Alaska and Hawaii enter as States. Idaho and Wyoming also did not cause a civil war when they entered the Union. Utah and Oklahoma also didn't seem to have caused civil wars. New Mexico and Arizona didnt either... Maybe the Civil War wasn't caused primarily by adding states, maybe it was due to other things... I dunno, I remember reading about all of those civil wars in my APUSH textbooks, they were right next to the bowling green massacre. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:39 Shinokuki wrote: Just like amy coney barrett and any other slimy GOP trying to reason why HURR DURR should be like this. No country is adopting this archaic voting system based on some 1800 slave owner Read the Federalist Papers and the ratifying conventions and understand the Articles of Confederation. Youre just displaying your ignorance to the world. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:46 Nevuk wrote: I dunno, I remember reading about all of those civil wars in my APUSH textbooks, they were right next to the bowling green massacre. I guess my rural prison-architect school didn't get the good textbooks  | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:40 Wegandi wrote: You get my point. I wasnt saying that in 1775 we had 50 colonies. Good lord don't be daft. But when was it decided that the amount of states should be permanently limited to 50? Hawaii was added in 1959.. Seems to me like the constitution should be entirely irrelevant in deciding whether PR or DC should have statehood. I think the argument that 'democrats are engaged in the same power politics as republicans and they only favor giving statehood because they benefit from it' is fairly reasonable (even if it is my own opinion that republicans have been more guilty of skirting morality/principles for political power), but I can't see the principled reasoning behind it. Principled arguments against the total vote being the decider of the political direction of the country virtually always seem to be arguments for granting DC and PR statehood, yet people who favor one of those also tend to favor the other. (Meanwhile I don't see any conflict grounded in principles between thinking that DC and PR should be granted statehood and that the popular vote should determine the direction of the country). | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10402 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:44 Starlightsun wrote: Supreme court currently deciding on a case where Catholic adoption agency excluded LGBT couples from consideration. The city stopped sending adoption cases to the agency, which is claiming religious discrimination. I'm guessing cases of this type are all going to be mere displays now with foregone conclusion? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/supreme-court-leans-in-favor-of-catholic-foster-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-g.html Seems relevant to Wegandi's pleading for "balance of power" (which is supposed to refer to government branches, not parties?) Expect the Court to rule 5-4 in favor of the Catholic agency with Roberts joining the liberals on this. While this should be a simple and shut case where prohibiting LGBT couples from adopting is a simple equal protections violation, this could end up similar to the masterpiece cake shop decision that held for the religious cakeshop. that being said, the cakeshop is a private business, adoption is much more related to the public. Further, assuming this is an equal protections violation, the Catholic agency must demonstrate a reason to exclude LGBT couples that will get through the strict scrutiny standard. There must be a clear and compelling reason for them to not allow LGBT couples to adopt. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10402 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:46 Wegandi wrote: Read the Federalist Papers and the ratifying conventions and understand the Articles of Confederation. Youre just displaying your ignorance to the world. You realize that the Federalist Papers are not the last word for interpreting the creation of this nation right? Jesus conservatives cling onto that shit as much as the bible. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:44 Starlightsun wrote: Supreme court currently deciding on a case where Catholic adoption agency excluded LGBT couples from consideration. The city stopped sending adoption cases to the agency, which is claiming religious discrimination. I'm guessing cases of this type are all going to be mere displays now with foregone conclusion? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/supreme-court-leans-in-favor-of-catholic-foster-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-g.html Seems relevant to Wegandi's pleading for "balance of power" (which is supposed to refer to government branches, not parties?) So when a baker does not serve his gay customers, they shout "He is free to serve whatever he wants, they can find another baker!", but when a city decides to not use a service agency, they are suddenly not free to choose who they work with, but must work with that one? The interpretation of religious discrimination never ceases to amaze me... | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:45 Wegandi wrote: The vast majority of historians are in agreement that the Missouri Compromise was a huge impetus for the start of the civil war (increasing tensions, ramping up strife, etc.). Remember Lincoln said he'd never free slaves if he could maintain the Union and the Missouri Compromise was a big issue relating to this. Oh, so your point is that by making ending slavery more plausible, the compromise made Lincoln ending slavery a real possibility, thus leading to the civil war? That's ... not an argument I would be making publicly. As it implies you think chattel slavery still shouldn't have been ended. Also: Lincoln was still a politician. They've always lied or spoken in half truths throughout history. He said a lot of wildly different things on this very topic. The other difference is that there's literally no issue right now that is as divisive as Slavery. The broadest differences aren't very far. We're talking about some people wanting private healthcare vs others not. None of the points of in actual contention are going to get <30% of the vote in any state, and most would wind up closer to 60/40. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10402 Posts
I LIED THERES A BIG GEORGIA UPDATE HOLY SHIT TRUMP LEAD DOWN TO 9.5k!!! Since the last update: Trump +1.4k Biden +4.6k Biden +76.7%, well above the line he needs. CAN HE HOLD THE LINE? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:52 mahrgell wrote: So when a baker does not serve his gay customers, they shout "He is free to serve whatever he wants, they can find another baker!", but when a city decides to not use a service agency, they are suddenly not free to choose who they work with, but must work with that one? The interpretation of religious discrimination never ceases to amaze me... It's absolutely shameful, here's to hoping some of the shit that comes down these next few years doesn't last our entire lifetime. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:49 FlaShFTW wrote: Expect the Court to rule 5-4 in favor of the Catholic agency with Roberts joining the liberals on this. While this should be a simple and shut case where prohibiting LGBT couples from adopting is a simple equal protections violation, this could end up similar to the masterpiece cake shop decision that held for the religious cakeshop. that being said, the cakeshop is a private business, adoption is much more related to the public. Further, assuming this is an equal protections violation, the Catholic agency must demonstrate a reason to exclude LGBT couples that will get through the strict scrutiny standard. There must be a clear and compelling reason for them to not allow LGBT couples to adopt. I guess it depends. Are there other adoptions agencies that are not catholic is the area or is this the only choice ? I guess there are others if the city stopped sending adoptions there. Thus due to their prior reasoning on abortion providers and other stuff, they should be able to ban who they want as long as there is another option for LGBT people (like, you know, busses or schools for blacks. Doesn't matter if they are segregated !) | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:35 Wegandi wrote: You realize we had a civil war in large part to the Missouri Compromise which ya know...was about adding new states. Foreigners ignorant of US history shouldnt be so boisterous on this topic. PS GOP would have as much chance of winning DC as they would if Cuba, NK, or Venezuela were added as a state (DC literally votes like 92-94% Democrat). PR is more like Wyoming levels of partisanship than DC (70% rather than 95%). Are you implying that modern day republicans would be willing to start a second civil war over the right to deny political representation to non-white people? I mean you might be right but that sounds like a strawman from an MSNBC fever dream. It's absolutely insane more than a century after the civil war and 50 years after Jim Crow people in DC, PR, Guam and the American Virgin island still dont have the right to vote. Event the Brittish Empire was dismantled in the 60s ffs. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:44 Zambrah wrote: Your insistence that the Missouri Compromise means adding any states means civil war implies that any state added at any point in American history should have also had some sort of civil war attached. I dont believe there was a Civil War when we had Alaska and Hawaii enter as States. Idaho and Wyoming also did not cause a civil war when they entered the Union. Utah and Oklahoma also didn't seem to have caused civil wars. New Mexico and Arizona didnt either... Maybe the Civil War wasn't caused primarily by adding states, maybe it was due to other things... A little history. Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states relatively together because Democrats wanted Alaska and Republicans wanted Hawaii (look how that turned out today lol). Usually states only get added with some semblance of balance of current power. Rarely has multiple states gotten added that only benefited one party (and again last time that happened it wasnt good for the polity of the US). Good history read on circumstances around HI and AK can be read here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-last-time-congress-created-a-new-state-hawaii | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10402 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:54 Nouar wrote: I guess it depends. Are there other adoptions agencies that are not catholic is the area or is this the only choice ? I guess there are others if the city stopped sending adoptions there. Thus due to their prior reasoning on abortion providers and other stuff, they should be able to ban who they want as long as there is another option for LGBT people (like, you know, busses or schools for blacks. Doesn't matter if they are segregated !) Well the argument that "just go to a different adoption agency" is not founded in any legal principle or theory. Just because there are other places you can go to does not make it a valid defense under the Equal Protections Clause. This is merely a battle of Religious Freedoms vs. Equal Protections. But this being adoption related and more to do with a public entity (the city controls where the adoptions go to) makes this case much clearer to me than the Masterpiece Cakeshop argument of forcing and compelling a private cake business from serving LGBT members. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10402 Posts
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmCv1eeVcAEUooo?format=jpg&name=large) Penis or sideways empire state building? | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:57 Wegandi wrote: A little history. Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states relatively together because Democrats wanted Alaska and Republicans wanted Hawaii (look how that turned out today lol). Usually states only get added with some semblance of balance of current power. Rarely has multiple states gotten added that only benefited one party (and again last time that happened it wasnt good for the polity of the US). Good history read on circumstances around HI and AK can be read here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-last-time-congress-created-a-new-state-hawaii This sounds like an argument for 'make PR and DC states, with how Alaska and Hawaii flipped, republicans can flip them too through a simple policy adjustment.' | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:50 FlaShFTW wrote: You realize that the Federalist Papers are not the last word for interpreting the creation of this nation right? Jesus conservatives cling onto that shit as much as the bible. Those documents and debates are central to the formation and nature of our Government and its institutions. If you want to understand the how and why of them you must know that history and those documents. You need to read Madison and Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists and understand the precursor Articles of Confederation. Just saying huuur durrr slave owner is peak stupidity. Id also add itd be a good idea to read Locke and Montisqeue but whatever. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
