Houses Passes Bill for DC Statehood.

[Fanatical Meat]

It's a tough call because right now I'm just spit-balling. Overall there's probably a decent solution somewhere, I just don't really have one off the top of my head.

Regardless, there is also a reason why the founders didn't want a particular state to benefit from the concept of being the place where the other states meet on a regular basis.

admittedly I have google knowledge on the subject, it appears they didn’t want people making decisions for the country living close to people who elected representatives and such hence the 10 square miles thing for DC, which currently is larger than 10 square miles. We could literally take the constitutions approach and keep 10 square set aside and still make a good population sized state.

 

[K1052]

Regardless, there is also a reason why the founders didn't want a particular state to benefit from the concept of being the place where the other states meet on a regular basis.

The core federal district including the Capital and all the main legislative office buildings would not be inside the state. This is a pointless line of argument anyway since the federal government and it's many contractors already extends deeply in to suburban VA and MD.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

admittedly I have google knowledge on the subject, it appears they didn’t want people making decisions for the country living close to people who elected representatives and such hence the 10 square miles thing for DC, which currently is larger than 10 square miles. We could literally take the constitutions approach and keep 10 square set aside and still make a good population sized state.

I got a better idea, move the capital to PR and just give DC to VA or MD. Solves the DC problem, and as a bonus you know PR would get taken care of. 2 birds and all that.

 

[fskimospy]

admittedly I have google knowledge on the subject, it appears they didn’t want people making decisions for the country living close to people who elected representatives and such hence the 10 square miles thing for DC, which currently is larger than 10 square miles. We could literally take the constitutions approach and keep 10 square set aside and still make a good population sized state.

It's the opposite - the Constitution says the district can not EXCEED 10 square miles. It doesn't need to be anywhere near that large.

 

[K1052]

So in other words you don't even know what the proposal is. Hint: there still would not be a particular state where the other states meet on a regular basis.

Yea this is the proposed boundary of the new federal district with all three branches clearly tucked inside:

 

[fskimospy]

I do wish right wing people would just say 'we oppose this because it is bad for us politically' as opposed to inventing ideas like 'the country's map is full' or 'they don't work the right kind of jobs to merit representation'.

 

[K1052]

I do wish right wing people would just say 'we oppose this because it is bad for us politically' as opposed to inventing ideas like 'the country's map is full' or 'they don't work the right kind of jobs to merit representation'.

That, at least, would be an honest answer.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I do wish right wing people would just say 'we oppose this because it is bad for us politically' as opposed to inventing ideas like 'the country's map is full' or 'they don't work the right kind of jobs to merit representation'.

Of course that's part of it Sr. Derpington. We don't have to mention that, it was pretty well assumed to anyone with half a brain.

The other part is... 51 states? Really? You REALLY want to screw up our flag of 50 stars along with tons of songs and other historical references

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Of course that's part of it Sr. Derpington. We don't have to mention that, it was pretty well assumed to anyone with half a brain.

The other part is... 51 states? Really? You REALLY want to screw up our flag of 50 stars along with tons of songs and other historical references

beat me I was going to say we will need new flags

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I do wish right wing people would just say 'we oppose this because it is bad for us politically' as opposed to inventing ideas like 'the country's map is full' or 'they don't work the right kind of jobs to merit representation'.

My favorite, from last year:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/republican-claims-dc-is-too-corrupt-to-become-51st-state/2019/09/19/74184685-b224-4a48-a9e2-51199162a161_video.html

DC is too corrupt and dependent on the federal govt for statehood.

 

[K1052]

Might as well add several and take care of the flag change all at once then.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Of course that's part of it Sr. Derpington. We don't have to mention that, it was pretty well assumed to anyone with half a brain.

The other part is... 51 states? Really? You REALLY want to screw up our flag of 50 stars along with tons of songs and other historical references

We already got a third of the nation worshiping one with 13.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course that's part of it Sr. Derpington. We don't have to mention that, it was pretty well assumed to anyone with half a brain.

The other part is... 51 states? Really? You REALLY want to screw up our flag of 50 stars along with tons of songs and other historical references

Oh my point is that the political part is all of their opposition. Like, 100%. While Democrats similarly want this for political power reasons they also have several other reasons that are compelling for their own sake.

And changing the flag and screwing up all those songs and historical references will make it so we have to write new ones. Think of the economic stimulus, and right on time!

 

[hal2kilo]

My favorite, from last year:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/republican-claims-dc-is-too-corrupt-to-become-51st-state/2019/09/19/74184685-b224-4a48-a9e2-51199162a161_video.html

DC is too corrupt and dependent on the federal govt for statehood.

Seems that definition fits several other states.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I do wish right wing people would just say 'we oppose this because it is bad for us politically' as opposed to inventing ideas like 'the country's map is full' or 'they don't work the right kind of jobs to merit representation'.

I do wish left wing people would just say “we now suddenly support this because it is good for us politically” and refrain from opening Pandora’s boxes that they will later incessantly whine about when it circles back to bite them.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I do wish left wing people would just say “we now suddenly support this because it is good for us politically” and refrain from opening Pandora’s boxes that they will later incessantly whine about when it circles back to bite them.

I’ve said it, I’ll say it again. Democrats have been fucked playing by the old rules for the last 10 years. Time to stop playing by the old rules and:
Having a Supreme Court pick stolen
Having minimal Judges seated/awarding a huge corrupt turd to seat a record number
Having the census screwed with
Having voter rights act disappear and suddenly D voting districts have problems
Having a turd of a President ignore DC

Fuck’em. I am all for making DC a State

 

[ch33zw1z]

I do wish left wing people would just say “we now suddenly support this because it is good for us politically” and refrain from opening Pandora’s boxes that they will later incessantly whine about when it circles back to bite them.

Haha, you're so petty. Btw, how's that dictionary coming?

 

[zinfamous]

I guess it doesn't matter what I post. Shrug...

It is obvious neither the Dems or Reps want any kind of compromise.

Washington DC will not be a state unless someone is willing to bend a little. It doesn't appear that is going to happen.

So I guess those poor people will have to either suffer without or little representation or move to a real state.

sorry, but the dems have only ever sought compromise in trying to put bills together. All you have to do to see this unassailable fact is to examine the last 3+ decades of public records regarding federal bills that have been discussed. I mean, you could also just listen to people like Newt Gingrich and of course Mitch who very publicly, and very unambiguously declared that their official platform is to block every single democrat piece of legislation, period. No compromise, no discussion.

Hell, we're pretty much in "this mess" because Billy Clinton, probably the most recent actual conservative president, compromised too much with the GOP during his presidency in passing darling conservative bills, to seek bipartisanship. Again, a simple fact of history. Then the dems did it again with a rather large piece of legislation, the very-conservative ACA, directly from the brain child of decades of conservative think-tankery, but of course has been labeled an enemy by the republicans--their very own bill--because they must put a D in front of it so that they can train their brains to hate it.

Republicans don't listen. They don't read. They don't discuss. They just hate and block. Pretty much all they are capable of doing.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I’ve said it, I’ll say it again. Democrats have been fucked playing by the old rules for the last 10 years. Time to stop playing by the old rules and:
Having a Supreme Court pick stolen
Having minimal Judges seated/awarding a huge corrupt turd to seat a record number
Having the census screwed with
Having voter rights act disappear and suddenly D voting districts have problems
Having a turd of a President ignore DC

Fuck’em. I am all for making DC a State

This guy, he gets it. Stop letting R's walk all over you, D's!

R's be like "onward Christian soldier!"

 

[zinfamous]

The core federal district including the Capital and all the main legislative office buildings would not be inside the state. This is a pointless line of argument anyway since the federal government and it's many contractors already extends deeply in to suburban VA and MD.

Even though Rome/Western Christendom figured out how to do it with the Vatican centuries ago, it's too complicated for us dumb modern humans to figure it out.

 

[HomerJS]

I do wish left wing people would just say “we now suddenly support this because it is good for us politically” and refrain from opening Pandora’s boxes that they will later incessantly whine about when it circles back to bite them.

Because that isn't true. Elenore Holmes Norton has been pushing this since 1993.

We all know why Tom Cotton doesn't want it. He essentially said too many of those dark people. I want them to look my state.

I wish people from the right would just admit it. Also admit they are ok with "taxation without representation"

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

sorry, but the dems have only ever sought compromise in trying to put bills together. All you have to do to see this unassailable fact is to examine the last 3+ decades of public records regarding federal bills that have been discussed. I mean, you could also just listen to people like Newt Gingrich and of course Mitch who very publicly, and very unambiguously declared that their official platform is to block every single democrat piece of legislation, period. No compromise, no discussion.

Hell, we're pretty much in "this mess" because Billy Clinton, probably the most recent actual conservative president, compromised too much with the GOP during his presidency in passing darling conservative bills, to seek bipartisanship. Again, a simple fact of history. Then the dems did it again with a rather large piece of legislation, the very-conservative ACA, directly from the brain child of decades of conservative think-tankery, but of course has been labeled an enemy by the republicans--their very own bill--because they must put a D in front of it so that they can train their brains to hate it.

Republicans don't listen. They don't read. They don't discuss. They just hate and block. Pretty much all they are capable of doing.

If you want something to be bi-partisan, you work to craft the original bill together with an associate at the opposite party.

You don't throw turds across the fence to the Senate and then cry when you get shit flinged back at you.



Also FUCKING LOL acting as if the ACA was bi-partisan. That was 100% passed with essentially a super majority democrats. The problem isn't "bi-partisan republican support" - it's that your party is just as-much in the DEEP DEEP corporate pockets as establishment republicans.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If you want something to be bi-partisan, you work to craft the original bill together with an associate at the opposite party.

You don't throw turds across the fence to the Senate and then cry when you get shit flinged back at you.



Also FUCKING LOL acting as if the ACA was bi-partisan. That was 100% passed with essentially a super majority democrats. The problem isn't "bi-partisan republican support" - it's that your party is just as-much in the DEEP DEEP corporate pockets as establishment republicans.

A republican came up with the ACA. Care to comment?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

A republican came up with the ACA. Care to comment?

I... don't care who come up with it? Really, I don't. It's a giant turd of a plutocrat bill that the lobbying groups were more than happy to endorse and make a few changes to.

That isn't bi-partisan. It's just plutocracy. The fact that you took an idea from one singular jurisdiction that was owned by a plutocrat republican at the time and nationalized it with lobbying groups and 6-dictionary thick stacks of rules/regulations on it doesn't make it bi-partisan in anyway.

 

[HomerJS]

I... don't care who come up with it? Really, I don't. It's a giant turd of a plutocrat bill that the lobbying groups were more than happy to endorse and make a few changes to.

That isn't bi-partisan. It's just plutocracy. The fact that you took an idea from one singular jurisdiction that was owned by a plutocrat republican at the time and nationalized it with lobbying groups and 6-dictionary thick stacks of rules/regulations on it doesn't make it bi-partisan in anyway.

Mitch McConnell stole Obama's SCOTUS pick. What makes you think Republicans would give this a hearing in good faith??