Would you be open to this proposal?

[TheReckoning]

No? It doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why does it get 1 senator instead of 2?

Because the Capitol district should not as much leveraging power as any other state.

Why

Because they may use it to benefit the federal government at the expense of the states.

How

Through legislating in a way that slants benefit to D.C.

Whaaaat I can’t believe that DC’s congressmen would try to get the best for DC! So unfair, if only other states could do the same

The difference is that the federal government may use this in an attempt to strengthen their hold over the states.

But how? Can you explain any of your thoughts?

Isn’t the whole point of DC statehood to give DC the power to influence national affairs?

It's to give DC the power the same influence over national affairs that other states do.

Which is a bad decision for reasons I’ve already stated.

You haven't given any reasons, just a bunch of buzzwords with no explanation as to what they'd actually mean in practice or what aspect of DC statehood would make them true

It gives the Federal government more power over our legislative bodies, directly contradicting the separation of powers between the Executive and legislative branch.

this makes zero sense unless you think the president and federal politicians are the only ones who live in DC?

Those involved with the executive branch in one way or another make up far too high % of those in DC for me to involved with its Statehood.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

No? It doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why does it get 1 senator instead of 2?

Because the Capitol district should not as much leveraging power as any other state.

Why

Because they may use it to benefit the federal government at the expense of the states.

How

Through legislating in a way that slants benefit to D.C.

Whaaaat I can’t believe that DC’s congressmen would try to get the best for DC! So unfair, if only other states could do the same

The difference is that the federal government may use this in an attempt to strengthen their hold over the states.

But how? Can you explain any of your thoughts?

Isn’t the whole point of DC statehood to give DC the power to influence national affairs?

It's to give DC the power the same influence over national affairs that other states do.

Which is a bad decision for reasons I’ve already stated.

You haven't given any reasons, just a bunch of buzzwords with no explanation as to what they'd actually mean in practice or what aspect of DC statehood would make them true

It gives the Federal government more power over our legislative bodies, directly contradicting the separation of powers between the Executive and legislative branch.

this makes zero sense unless you think the president and federal politicians are the only ones who live in DC?

Those involved with the executive branch in one way or another make up far too high % of those in DC for me to involved with its Statehood.

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

[TheReckoning]

No? It doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why does it get 1 senator instead of 2?

Because the Capitol district should not as much leveraging power as any other state.

Why

Because they may use it to benefit the federal government at the expense of the states.

How

Through legislating in a way that slants benefit to D.C.

Whaaaat I can’t believe that DC’s congressmen would try to get the best for DC! So unfair, if only other states could do the same

The difference is that the federal government may use this in an attempt to strengthen their hold over the states.

But how? Can you explain any of your thoughts?

Isn’t the whole point of DC statehood to give DC the power to influence national affairs?

It's to give DC the power the same influence over national affairs that other states do.

Which is a bad decision for reasons I’ve already stated.

You haven't given any reasons, just a bunch of buzzwords with no explanation as to what they'd actually mean in practice or what aspect of DC statehood would make them true

It gives the Federal government more power over our legislative bodies, directly contradicting the separation of powers between the Executive and legislative branch.

this makes zero sense unless you think the president and federal politicians are the only ones who live in DC?

Those involved with the executive branch in one way or another make up far too high % of those in DC for me to involved with its Statehood.

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

[Dr. MB]

No? It doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why does it get 1 senator instead of 2?

Because the Capitol district should not as much leveraging power as any other state.

Why

Because they may use it to benefit the federal government at the expense of the states.

How

Through legislating in a way that slants benefit to D.C.

Whaaaat I can’t believe that DC’s congressmen would try to get the best for DC! So unfair, if only other states could do the same

The difference is that the federal government may use this in an attempt to strengthen their hold over the states.

But how? Can you explain any of your thoughts?

Isn’t the whole point of DC statehood to give DC the power to influence national affairs?

It's to give DC the power the same influence over national affairs that other states do.

Which is a bad decision for reasons I’ve already stated.

You haven't given any reasons, just a bunch of buzzwords with no explanation as to what they'd actually mean in practice or what aspect of DC statehood would make them true

It gives the Federal government more power over our legislative bodies, directly contradicting the separation of powers between the Executive and legislative branch.

this makes zero sense unless you think the president and federal politicians are the only ones who live in DC?

Those involved with the executive branch in one way or another make up far too high % of those in DC for me to involved with its Statehood.

In 2017 only 141,367 people (around 20% of the total population) were employed by the federal government in any capacity in DC. A higher number live in the suburbs of Maryland or across the river in Virginia.

[7,052,770]

Are there any other countries where the capital city has less representational power than the other (main) constituent parts? Ottawa has representation, as does London, Canberra, Wellington, Berlin, and Paris among others.

Australia has reduced (but not 0) representation for Canberra. Every other developed country has full representation for its capital. We are alone on this injustice.

[TheReckoning]

No? It doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why does it get 1 senator instead of 2?

Because the Capitol district should not as much leveraging power as any other state.

Why

Because they may use it to benefit the federal government at the expense of the states.

How

Through legislating in a way that slants benefit to D.C.

Whaaaat I can’t believe that DC’s congressmen would try to get the best for DC! So unfair, if only other states could do the same

The difference is that the federal government may use this in an attempt to strengthen their hold over the states.

But how? Can you explain any of your thoughts?

Isn’t the whole point of DC statehood to give DC the power to influence national affairs?

It's to give DC the power the same influence over national affairs that other states do.

Which is a bad decision for reasons I’ve already stated.

You haven't given any reasons, just a bunch of buzzwords with no explanation as to what they'd actually mean in practice or what aspect of DC statehood would make them true

It gives the Federal government more power over our legislative bodies, directly contradicting the separation of powers between the Executive and legislative branch.

this makes zero sense unless you think the president and federal politicians are the only ones who live in DC?

Those involved with the executive branch in one way or another make up far too high % of those in DC for me to involved with its Statehood.

In 2017 only 141,367 people (around 20% of the total population) were employed by the federal government in any capacity in DC. A higher number live in the suburbs of Maryland or across the river in Virginia.

Misleading number.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

No? It doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why does it get 1 senator instead of 2?

Because the Capitol district should not as much leveraging power as any other state.

Why

Because they may use it to benefit the federal government at the expense of the states.

How

Through legislating in a way that slants benefit to D.C.

Whaaaat I can’t believe that DC’s congressmen would try to get the best for DC! So unfair, if only other states could do the same

The difference is that the federal government may use this in an attempt to strengthen their hold over the states.

But how? Can you explain any of your thoughts?

Isn’t the whole point of DC statehood to give DC the power to influence national affairs?

It's to give DC the power the same influence over national affairs that other states do.

Which is a bad decision for reasons I’ve already stated.

You haven't given any reasons, just a bunch of buzzwords with no explanation as to what they'd actually mean in practice or what aspect of DC statehood would make them true

It gives the Federal government more power over our legislative bodies, directly contradicting the separation of powers between the Executive and legislative branch.

this makes zero sense unless you think the president and federal politicians are the only ones who live in DC?

Those involved with the executive branch in one way or another make up far too high % of those in DC for me to involved with its Statehood.

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Until you explain to the rest of us how that could possibly work, I'm gonna stick with my original assertion.

Not gonna lie, it really can't help but feel like you're trying really hard to work backwards from the conclusion you want and are grasping at straws to justify it.

[Dr. MB]

No? It doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why does it get 1 senator instead of 2?

Because the Capitol district should not as much leveraging power as any other state.

Why

Because they may use it to benefit the federal government at the expense of the states.

How

Through legislating in a way that slants benefit to D.C.

Whaaaat I can’t believe that DC’s congressmen would try to get the best for DC! So unfair, if only other states could do the same

The difference is that the federal government may use this in an attempt to strengthen their hold over the states.

But how? Can you explain any of your thoughts?

Isn’t the whole point of DC statehood to give DC the power to influence national affairs?

It's to give DC the power the same influence over national affairs that other states do.

Which is a bad decision for reasons I’ve already stated.

You haven't given any reasons, just a bunch of buzzwords with no explanation as to what they'd actually mean in practice or what aspect of DC statehood would make them true

It gives the Federal government more power over our legislative bodies, directly contradicting the separation of powers between the Executive and legislative branch.

this makes zero sense unless you think the president and federal politicians are the only ones who live in DC?

Those involved with the executive branch in one way or another make up far too high % of those in DC for me to involved with its Statehood.

In 2017 only 141,367 people (around 20% of the total population) were employed by the federal government in any capacity in DC. A higher number live in the suburbs of Maryland or across the river in Virginia.

Misleading number.

So around 30% of the district is either under 18 or over 65. That leaves us with a working age adult population of about 470,000 (as of 2017) and...30% federal employment. Nowhere close to a majority or enough to enact whatever secret statist agenda you think is in the works.

[ultraviolet]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

[TheReckoning]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Here's a compromise: Republican states get one senator and half the representatives they'd otherwise be entitled to, Democratic states get three senators and twice the representatives they'd otherwise be entitled to. Some of you may die, but it is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

[ultraviolet]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

[TheReckoning]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

No more than any other state, why?

[WD]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

[Dr. MB]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

At this point you've gotta be trolling BUT in the case that you're not why the f**k do you think people who live in DC are all power hungry CIA agents? They're normal people. Whoever DC elects to be a senator would be no different than any other Democrat in the senate.

[7,052,770]

I'm going to need a tangible and realistic example, along with an explanation of how Virginia, Maryland, or anyone else can't already do that.

Notice he still won't answer the question, even though his "there are too many federal government employees in DC for it to be a state" ignores the fact that many of them live in Maryland and Virginia, and those get to be states without whatever terrible consequences he envisions.

[TheReckoning]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

The Senate Majority leader is more powerful than other senator. Therefore, a Senate Majority Leader from DC has more power than any other senator.

[ultraviolet]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

The Senate Majority leader is more powerful than other senator. Therefore, a Senate Majority Leader from DC has more power than any other senator.

Well yeah. So does a Senate Majority Leader from Wyoming. There is no point being made here lol

[TheReckoning]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

The Senate Majority leader is more powerful than other senator. Therefore, a Senate Majority Leader from DC has more power than any other senator.

Well yeah. So does a Senate Majority Leader from Wyoming. There is no point being made here lol

The point is that a SML from DC could very well abuse that power to strength the federal government at the expense of the states.

[7,052,770]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

The Senate Majority leader is more powerful than other senator. Therefore, a Senate Majority Leader from DC has more power than any other senator.

Well yeah. So does a Senate Majority Leader from Wyoming. There is no point being made here lol

The point is that a SML from DC could very well abuse that power to strength the federal government at the expense of the states.

So could a SML from an existing state.

[TheReckoning]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

The Senate Majority leader is more powerful than other senator. Therefore, a Senate Majority Leader from DC has more power than any other senator.

Well yeah. So does a Senate Majority Leader from Wyoming. There is no point being made here lol

The point is that a SML from DC could very well abuse that power to strength the federal government at the expense of the states.

So could a SML from an existing state.

Only they would have no motivation to do that, and their constituents would vote them out, unlike the SML from DC.

[ultraviolet]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

The Senate Majority leader is more powerful than other senator. Therefore, a Senate Majority Leader from DC has more power than any other senator.

Well yeah. So does a Senate Majority Leader from Wyoming. There is no point being made here lol

The point is that a SML from DC could very well abuse that power to strength the federal government at the expense of the states.

So could a SML from an existing state.

Only they would have no motivation to do that, and their constituents would vote them out, unlike the SML from DC.

And what would a DC senator’s motivation to strengthen the federal government be? They’re representing the state of DC, not the federal government, just like any other senator.

[TheReckoning]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

The Senate Majority leader is more powerful than other senator. Therefore, a Senate Majority Leader from DC has more power than any other senator.

Well yeah. So does a Senate Majority Leader from Wyoming. There is no point being made here lol

The point is that a SML from DC could very well abuse that power to strength the federal government at the expense of the states.

So could a SML from an existing state.

Only they would have no motivation to do that, and their constituents would vote them out, unlike the SML from DC.

And what would a DC senator’s motivation to strengthen the federal government be? They’re representing the state of DC, not the federal government, just like any other senator.

DC and the Federal government are so heavily intertwined- and have been for the past 220 years- that I feel like this is rather obvious.

[John Dule]

So you think that working for the federal government should be grounds for your disenfranchisement?

Also, the idea that 2 senators from DC (in a body of 102 senators) could unilaterally enact some sort of anti-state government or pro-executive branch agenda is absurd for obvious reasons.

Wrong.

Can you tell us how 0.6% of Congress is going to take over the government and destroy the separation of powers?

Mitch McConnell?

With that reasoning, I guess we should’ve just not made Kentucky a state.

That has nothing to do with DC statehood anyway

Can you imagine someone from DC being a Senate Majority Leader, using their power to stomp on the will of states and strengthen the federal government? I can. And it could be disastrous.

The hell are you talking about? What would make a Senator (or potential Majority Leader) from DC more powerful than one from any other state?

The Senate Majority leader is more powerful than other senator. Therefore, a Senate Majority Leader from DC has more power than any other senator.

Well yeah. So does a Senate Majority Leader from Wyoming. There is no point being made here lol

The point is that a SML from DC could very well abuse that power to strength the federal government at the expense of the states.

So could a SML from an existing state.

Only they would have no motivation to do that, and their constituents would vote them out, unlike the SML from DC.

And what would a DC senator’s motivation to strengthen the federal government be? They’re representing the state of DC, not the federal government, just like any other senator.

DC and the Federal government are so heavily intertwined- and have been for the past 220 years- that I feel like this is rather obvious.

It's not obvious, it's a moronic argument that you are wasting your time trying to justify.