DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[7,052,770]

I just merged 6 threads on this same topic. 

There are also PR and DC megathreads, both of which discuss the other some.

[The Dowager Mod]

This board is already a clusterf**k we don't need a dozen threads asking, "what if DC was made a state on a Thursday under a full moon in September?"

[It’s so Joever]

I just merged 6 threads on this same topic. 

Washyoming deserves its own thread though. 

I think it is the greatest proposal ever.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Please split California in half.

Just so long as you guys have to keep Newsom.

Deal. You can have Kevin McCarthy.

Bakersfield goes with NorCal. Sorry, the Tehachapis are the border.

Bulldinky. This should be the map:

Uh-Uh. Straight-line borders are cringe. I do, however, agree on ceding the Eastern Sierra to Nevada (which would have the additional affect of making the state three times as interesting.)

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Please split California in half.

Just so long as you guys have to keep Newsom.

Deal. You can have Kevin McCarthy.

Bakersfield goes with NorCal. Sorry, the Tehachapis are the border.

Bulldinky. This should be the map:

Uh-Uh. Straight-line borders are cringe. I do, however, agree on ceding the Eastern Sierra to Nevada (which would have the additional affect of making the state three times as interesting.)

IMO it should follow county borders.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

IMO it should follow county borders.

What about when county borders don't make any sense in the first place? Kern is a travesty.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

what happened to this thread.

[WMS]

This board is already a clusterf**k we don't need a dozen threads asking, "what if DC was made a state on a Thursday under a full moon in September?"

In that case DC gains a third Senator during every leap year

[John Dule]

IMO it should follow county borders.

What about when county borders don't make any sense in the first place? Kern is a travesty.

You're just trying to force Bakersfield on us, Southerner.

[Torrain]

This board is already a clusterf**k we don't need a dozen threads asking, "what if DC was made a state on a Thursday under a full moon in September?"

In that case DC gains a third Senator during every leap year

But if you land on Community Chest, there's a chance that you can skip ahead and get 200 senators for passing GO.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

IMO it should follow county borders.

What about when county borders don't make any sense in the first place? Kern is a travesty.

You're just trying to force Bakersfield on us, Southerner.

*chadyes* And rightfully so.

[MT Treasurer]

It was NID he was going to vote in party line in most important democratic legislation, GOP needs to stop this "Manchin isn't going to vote for x thing", he will.

Yeah, this talking point was always just delusion and/or wishful thinking from many Republicans and progressives alike. Manchin is a reliable vote for the de-facto elimination of the filibuster (although it’s cute that people are somehow still falling for this even after he literally voted to impeach Trump, bashed Trump and his voters after Biden's election/WV almost gave him 70% of the vote, and waited until Collins had announced to declare his support for Kavanaugh, etc.). Shows you just how gullible people are, mostly but not exclusively on the Republican side (see: Collins, Sununu, Garcia, ...).

He is very smart to keep his "moderate" status, but when it matters, he always vote party line. Like you said, he only vote for Kavanaugh because they had the votes and he waited for Collins, also his 60% Trump record it's mostly because republicans have the votes and he needs to look bipartisan.

Republicans and Trump supporters like AncestralDemocrat who voted for him in 2018 have no one but themselves to blame for what’s about to happen right now. Manchin has always had nothing but contempt for his own constituents, if they’re too dumb to realize that even when his voting record/previous actions/endorsements/statements have made that abundantly clear, they have to (and will) pay the price for their ignorance.

[Ron DeSantis enthusiast]

It was NID he was going to vote in party line in most important democratic legislation, GOP needs to stop this "Manchin isn't going to vote for x thing", he will.

Yeah, this talking point was always just delusion and/or wishful thinking from many Republicans and progressives alike. Manchin is a reliable vote for the de-facto elimination of the filibuster (although it’s cute that people are somehow still falling for this even after he literally voted to impeach Trump, bashed Trump and his voters after Biden's election/WV almost gave him 70% of the vote, and waited until Collins had announced to declare his support for Kavanaugh, etc.). Shows you just how gullible people are, mostly but not exclusively on the Republican side (see: Collins, Sununu, Garcia, ...).

He is very smart to keep his "moderate" status, but when it matters, he always vote party line. Like you said, he only vote for Kavanaugh because they had the votes and he waited for Collins, also his 60% Trump record it's mostly because republicans have the votes and he needs to look bipartisan.

Republicans and Trump supporters like AncestralDemocrat who voted for him in 2018 have no one but themselves to blame for what’s about to happen right now. Manchin has always had nothing but contempt for his own constituents, if they’re too dumb to realize that even when his voting record/previous actions/endorsements/statements have made that abundantly clear, they have to (and will) pay the price for their ignorance.

Tbf also Morrisey was a very weak candidate

[MT Treasurer]

Tbf also Morrisey was a very weak candidate

Democrats in Clinton +>40 states (or Clinton +>3 states, for that matter) don’t send Republicans to the Senate just because the Democrat is a 'weak candidate.' Maybe red state voters should get their priorities straight.

[Former President tack50]

Tbf also Morrisey was a very weak candidate

Democrats in Clinton +>40 states (or Clinton +>3 states, for that matter) don’t send Republicans to the Senate just because the Democrat is a 'weak candidate.' Maybe red state voters should get their priorities straight.

Tbh an interesting but probably not talked enough about phenomenon is how Republican states are more comfortable than Democratic states sending Dem senators to Washington; while for governors it is the exact opposite, and it's Democratic states the ones that seem more comfortable sending Republican governors to their state capitol

Though maybe this is a wrong impression

[Ron DeSantis enthusiast]

Tbf also Morrisey was a very weak candidate

Democrats in Clinton +>40 states (or Clinton +>3 states, for that matter) don’t send Republicans to the Senate just because the Democrat is a 'weak candidate.' Maybe red state voters should get their priorities straight.

I agree with you, I would vote for a weak republican all day long.

[Ron DeSantis enthusiast]

Tbf also Morrisey was a very weak candidate

Democrats in Clinton +>40 states (or Clinton +>3 states, for that matter) don’t send Republicans to the Senate just because the Democrat is a 'weak candidate.' Maybe red state voters should get their priorities straight.

Tbh an interesting but probably not talked enough about phenomenon is how Republican states are more comfortable than Democratic states sending Dem senators to Washington; while for governors it is the exact opposite, and it's Democratic states the ones that seem more comfortable sending Republican governors to their state capitol

Though maybe this is a wrong impression

There are only three democratic senators in all the states that voted for Trump (Tester, Manchin and Brown) and there are three republican senators in all the states that voted for Biden (Johnson, Toomey and Collins), but tbf only Maine is a blue state, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are more purple than blue.

[kwabbit]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

I think “it’s bigger than 2 states and 80% of the population wants to be one” is pretty much a slam dunk for me.

[kwabbit]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

I think “it’s bigger than 2 states and 80% of the population wants to be one” is pretty much a slam dunk for me.

The larger population argument misses some of the reason why Wyoming is a state. Wyoming is geographically vast despite having a small population. Appending it to Montana would've created a state perhaps too large to manage during the 1800s. Wyoming needed to be a separate state to have a functional government. DC would be by far the smallest state geographically; there's no difficulty in governance like the one that Wyoming would've had if it was part of a different state. Admitting a extremely geographically small and pretty small in terms of population state would be a new precedent. Small pop states are either extremely large, geographically isolated, or were created hundreds of years ago. None of these things apply to DC. If anything it should be annexed by Maryland. Elevating it to statehood wouldn't be the best government. It should either be annexed by MD or VA or remain a distinct capital area.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

I think “it’s bigger than 2 states and 80% of the population wants to be one” is pretty much a slam dunk for me.

The larger population argument misses some of the reason why Wyoming is a state. Wyoming is geographically vast despite having a small population. Appending it to Montana would've created a state perhaps too large to manage during the 1800s. Wyoming needed to be a separate state to have a functional government. DC would be by far the smallest state geographically; there's no difficulty in governance like the one that Wyoming would've had if it was part of a different state. Admitting a extremely geographically small and pretty small in terms of population state would be a new precedent. Small pop states are either extremely large, geographically isolated, or were created hundreds of years ago. None of these things apply to DC. If anything it should be annexed by Maryland. Elevating it to statehood wouldn't be the best government. It should either be annexed by MD or VA or remain a distinct capital area.

1. DC has a higher population than Vermont, which you have hitherto ignored. Why not make Vermont join up with New Hampshire or New York while you’re at it?

2. DC was created hundreds of years ago.

3. Words cannot express the contempt I feel for people who throw around “just become part of Maryland!” I don’t know if it’s rational of me, but to me it immediately demonstrates that someone has spent very little time actually thinking about the issue, because nobody in either DC or Maryland wants that at all.

[It’s so Joever]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

And you are lying to yourself when you say you aren’t politically motivated against DC statehood.
Yeah I admit it, we want DC statehood for the senators, deal with it, your side is far worse and this is payback for your destruction of the country. I don’t care how you feel.

[kwabbit]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

I think “it’s bigger than 2 states and 80% of the population wants to be one” is pretty much a slam dunk for me.

The larger population argument misses some of the reason why Wyoming is a state. Wyoming is geographically vast despite having a small population. Appending it to Montana would've created a state perhaps too large to manage during the 1800s. Wyoming needed to be a separate state to have a functional government. DC would be by far the smallest state geographically; there's no difficulty in governance like the one that Wyoming would've had if it was part of a different state. Admitting a extremely geographically small and pretty small in terms of population state would be a new precedent. Small pop states are either extremely large, geographically isolated, or were created hundreds of years ago. None of these things apply to DC. If anything it should be annexed by Maryland. Elevating it to statehood wouldn't be the best government. It should either be annexed by MD or VA or remain a distinct capital area.

1. DC has a higher population than Vermont, which you have hitherto ignored. Why not make Vermont join up with New Hampshire or New York while you’re at it?

2. DC was created hundreds of years ago.

3. Words cannot express the contempt I feel for people who throw around “just become part of Maryland!” I don’t know if it’s rational of me, but to me it immediately demonstrates that someone has spent very little time actually thinking about the issue, because nobody in either DC or Maryland wants that at all.

Vermont was referenced. It was a small state that was created hundreds of years ago when most state were small states. Vermont already exists as a state, and creating such a state was reasonable hundreds of years ago.

DC was created hundreds of years ago, but not as a state! Perhaps it would've been a reasonable state hundreds of years ago, but the last time a state anywhere close to the size of DC was created was WV in 1863. WV was much bigger and more populous. All other states created in the last 175 years was either much bigger, more populous relative to the nation, or geographically isolated.

People complain all the time about WY being so damn small in terms of population. They regard it as bad government. The solution for this to not create another, even sillier state. Perhaps MD should not annex DC and it would be unwise and signal a lack of parochial knowledge in the area. But creating a state that's 15 times smaller than any other state and was already carved out of an existing state would be bad government. DC should remain as a capital district.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Something tells me that if progressives decided not to push for Puerto Rico to get statehood, a lot of the people saying we only want it for the senators and that the margin in the referendum was too thin would suddenly start clamoring that we’re just scared of them electing Republicans.

[kwabbit]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

And you are lying to yourself when you say you aren’t politically motivated against DC statehood.
Yeah I admit it, we want DC statehood for the senators, deal with it, your side is far worse and this is payback for your destruction of the country. I don’t care how you feel.

I don't regard Trump, Hawley, Cruz or most of the Republican senators and congress people as my side. I have voted in one presidential election and that was for Biden. I don't think I'm an R partisan hack.