Do you support DC statehood?

[fhtagn]

Yes, but only if an equivalent Republican state is added somewhere else.

"I love democracy.*


*Unless such democracy hurts the GOP."

We all know the real reason why people here support DC statehood.

It has nothing to do with representation.

[fhtagn]

Absolutely not, since it's an obvious power grab for the sole political benefit of the Democratic party.  And DC already has enough power and influence.


Although there is a legitimate argument to be made for P.R. statehood, but not for D.C. statehood.  it's too bad PR doesn't have the military strategic benefits of Hawaii/Alaska/Guam etc... in which case I'd support it fully.

Is refusing to give DC representation in congress because of their political leanings not a form of voter suppression? They are Americans living in America, who deserve the same political rights as all Americans. It doesn't matter how they lean.

Supporting retrocession to MD does exactly what you are claiming to want.

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

[fhtagn]

Absolutely not, since it's an obvious power grab for the sole political benefit of the Democratic party.  And DC already has enough power and influence.


Although there is a legitimate argument to be made for P.R. statehood, but not for D.C. statehood.  it's too bad PR doesn't have the military strategic benefits of Hawaii/Alaska/Guam etc... in which case I'd support it fully.

Is refusing to give DC representation in congress because of their political leanings not a form of voter suppression? They are Americans living in America, who deserve the same political rights as all Americans. It doesn't matter how they lean.

Supporting retrocession to MD does exactly what you are claiming to want.

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

We would support DC statehood even if it were a Republican area, because the principle that all Americans should be represented in Congress [unless they explicitly don't want to be, like American Samoa] rises over everything. I also support statehood for Puerto Rico and Guam, even though those 2 states are rarely going to be 100% Democratic in Congress.

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

Supporting retrocession to MD does exactly what you are claiming to want.

[fhtagn]

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

                     

I read your post. You want to just make it part of Maryland because you think that's more favorable to Republicans.

But America has no history of doing this. We didn't tell Alaska, "Oh, you can just be part of Washington." We didn't just give Hawaii to California. No territory has ever tried to get statehood, only to be absorbed into an existing state.

Now if DC and Maryland residents wanted this arrangement, I wouldn't fight it, but Republicans pushing this "alternative plan" are solely doing so to keep Democrats out of Congress rather than any kind of principles.

Culturally, it's no different than it's immediate surrounding areas in MD. There's no reason a small portion of a city shouldn't just become part of a state it's already similar to. There's no reason it should be it's own state.

It's not even remotely comparable to your post about making Alaska part of Washington or Hawaii part of California and you know it.

[fhtagn]

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

                     

I read your post. You want to just make it part of Maryland because you think that's more favorable to Republicans.

But America has no history of doing this. We didn't tell Alaska, "Oh, you can just be part of Washington." We didn't just give Hawaii to California. No territory has ever tried to get statehood, only to be absorbed into an existing state.

Now if DC and Maryland residents wanted this arrangement, I wouldn't fight it, but Republicans pushing this "alternative plan" are solely doing so to keep Democrats out of Congress rather than any kind of principles.

Culturally, it's no different than it's immediate surrounding areas in MD. There's no reason a small portion of a city shouldn't just become part of a state it's already similar to. There's no reason it should be it's own state.

It's not even remotely comparable to your post about making Alaska part of Washington or Hawaii part of California and you know it.

Wrong, you are just a shameless hack. Not a single one of the 37 states admitted after the original 13 have ever faced any possibility of just being tacked onto another state, and none of the 50 states have ever had a separate territory added onto them in lieu of giving that territory its own statehood.

And there are plenty examples of new states being culturally similar to an already-existing border state at the time, and yet this has never been a consideration. You (and your fellow Republican hacks) just want to change the norms for Douglass because you know your policies and attitudes will have a hard time getting votes there, and you don't want to even try.

That's a key difference in Republicans and Democrats. When people don't support us, we go out and try to convince them to change their minds. It's worked wonders in the suburbs over the last few years. When people don't support yall, you just try to prevent them from being able to vote at all.

The parts of DC affected are just a portion of an existing city, something that makes quite a bit more sense to tack onto an existing state than it ever will making it it's own state. It's not even remotely the same as the argument you are trying to present.

Get back to me when you have a real argument worth taking seriously.