Do you support DC statehood?

[7,052,770]

Yes, all Americans deserve full representation in Congress and the right to self-govern on the level of any state without interference from Congress.

[7,052,770]

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.

[7,052,770]

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible.

                     
This from Del Tachi of all people, who proudly describes himself as a hack who "carries water" for Trump even though he knows he's an idiot and admits he sees politics merely as a game who he wants Republicans to win. You present yourself in the least flattering light - I don't have to do anything.

Oh please, Harry.  Cut it out with the sanctimonious bull.  It takes absolutely zero conviction to say what you would do in a hypothetical situation. 

I would support DC statehood regardless of how they vote. If North Dakota or somewhere were just a territory and wanted to be a state, I would support its admission. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's a safe bet that a lot more liberals think like I do than the reverse. If DC leaned Republican, 100% of Republicans would gladly support its admission (and would've done so years ago), with enough liberal support to call it "bipartisan."

If you want to be consistent, fix the Senate and then address D.C. statehood. 

No doubt it would be fairer to also allocate senators proportionally to US population, but that's never going to happen, period. No small or even medium-sized state is ever going to agree to that.

[7,052,770]

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.

[7,052,770]

Oh, and just for the record, DC's position of having no representation at all in the national legislature is not common around the world by any stretch of the imagination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_districts_and_territories

Only Australia, which does allow the ACT representation, but not as much as the states get, is even comparable.

[7,052,770]

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.

[7,052,770]

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.

Well Douglass is going to be a state in 6 months regardless of whether you are too much of a hack to take it seriously or not, so 🤷‍♂️

[7,052,770]

Would you accept a Constitutional amendment that reinforced DC's home rule and gave them 1 Rep and 2 Senators? If not, why shouldn't DC have the same representation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment

Something kinda like that actually passed Congress in 1978, though not with explicit home rule, but it has only ever gotten 16 of the needed 38 states to ratify.

[7,052,770]

What percentage of a territory must be employed in agriculture or mining for it to be eligible for statehood, and what is justification for this beyond "contrive something to prevent DC from being a state" ?

[7,052,770]

DC Statehood defeats the purpose of it being.....DC.

Society marches on. What may have made sense in the 1790s doesn't necessarily make sense in the 2020s.