Republicans are revving up for a D.C. smackdown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

I think your metaphor of a city of 700,000 people as a child who needs adults to give it permission to run its own affairs is a little ridiculous. What other cities do you think aren't capable of self-government?

Interestingly no one has yet asserted that DC actually behaves in a responsible manner. Plenty of other cities aren't capable of self-government. They can't manage their money, or poison their citizens with lead, or fail to teach children, etc... DC has had or has all of these problems btw.

Other cities get taken over by their states, but since DC is a Federal district, they get taken over by Congress. Those states then get to prove they learned their lesson, and possibly get self-governance back.

Home rule defenders are largely in denial that there is a problem. They probably won't even begin to think of solutions until their rice bowls are in danger.

So in my opinion, the sooner those rice bowls get endangered, the better for everyone involved. You could probably even forestall federal intervention by doing some pretty simple stuff now.

I think the onus ought to be on the people who are demanding an end to local control to show why that step makes sense, not for those of us who believe our locally elected leaders should run the city to somehow prove that.

No idea what you mean by rice bowls.

The last time the feds seized control of the city, it wasn't because of crime, it was because the budget was a disaster. The city is taking steps now to head off such a disaster. You may or may not like those steps -- like raising property taxes -- but the financial situation is way better now than it was when the control board was first imposed.

Not the PP you are responding to, but they made a great point I had never thought about with state takeover. It does seem equivalent. I've lived in a couple cities that had declared bankruptcy and were under stringent conditions. Eventually things turned around. Rice bowl is an expression I've heard before. My husband uses it to mean the things a person is really focused on / cares about - sometimes (not always) to the detriment of the bigger picture. I wonder if he's posting, but he claims not to go in DCUM. More of a x guy.

Right, and D.C. had this happen from 1995 to 2001, when its finances were in horrible condition. D.C. has AAA-rated bond and more than a month's operating expenses held in reserve. Why would you think it should be taken over when it's nowhere near bankruptcy?

Because it is a dangerous city where domestic terrorists are allowed to desecrate the US flag and monuments with impunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

I think your metaphor of a city of 700,000 people as a child who needs adults to give it permission to run its own affairs is a little ridiculous. What other cities do you think aren't capable of self-government?

Interestingly no one has yet asserted that DC actually behaves in a responsible manner. Plenty of other cities aren't capable of self-government. They can't manage their money, or poison their citizens with lead, or fail to teach children, etc... DC has had or has all of these problems btw.

Other cities get taken over by their states, but since DC is a Federal district, they get taken over by Congress. Those states then get to prove they learned their lesson, and possibly get self-governance back.

Home rule defenders are largely in denial that there is a problem. They probably won't even begin to think of solutions until their rice bowls are in danger.

So in my opinion, the sooner those rice bowls get endangered, the better for everyone involved. You could probably even forestall federal intervention by doing some pretty simple stuff now.

I think the onus ought to be on the people who are demanding an end to local control to show why that step makes sense, not for those of us who believe our locally elected leaders should run the city to somehow prove that.

No idea what you mean by rice bowls.

The last time the feds seized control of the city, it wasn't because of crime, it was because the budget was a disaster. The city is taking steps now to head off such a disaster. You may or may not like those steps -- like raising property taxes -- but the financial situation is way better now than it was when the control board was first imposed.

Keep in mind DC has spent most of its existence as a ward of Congress, only getting home rule in 1973. Home rule lasted all of 22 years (majority under Barry) before the Control Board was needed. The Control Board ended in 2001 and now 23 years later we are again in need of federal oversight. So a return to federal control is really just a return to status quo.

DC has only had one good elected mayor, and he was practically hand-picked by the Control Board. Of the two OK mayors, one only got picked because Barry got busted. That leaves Fenty as the only OK mayor DC voters ever truly picked, and he got bounced after one term. This is hardly a track-record to be proud of. A return to appointed Mayors would almost certainly be an improvement.

As for rice bowls, Urban Dictionary #2 is what I meant: "A protected job, project, program etc..."

But why are we in need of federal oversight? The city is not bankrupt. You disagree with policy choices the elected leaders are making, but that doesn't mean they ought to be replaced by unelected appointees named by people elected in other parts of the country. If you want the city's leaders to make different choices, advocate for those choices or run for office, don't just go crying to Congress and hope they take away the few votes we actually get to cast.

You missed the history here. DC has had an appointed Mayor for most of its history. Elected Mayors are a new development. This is just a "Reject Modernity, Retvrn to Tradition" thing. Elected Mayors have basically run the city into the ground. Why wouldn't we want to go back to an appointed Mayor/Control Board/appointed Council/etc...?

Appointed Mayors have just done a plain better job running the city than Elected ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

I think your metaphor of a city of 700,000 people as a child who needs adults to give it permission to run its own affairs is a little ridiculous. What other cities do you think aren't capable of self-government?

Interestingly no one has yet asserted that DC actually behaves in a responsible manner. Plenty of other cities aren't capable of self-government. They can't manage their money, or poison their citizens with lead, or fail to teach children, etc... DC has had or has all of these problems btw.

Other cities get taken over by their states, but since DC is a Federal district, they get taken over by Congress. Those states then get to prove they learned their lesson, and possibly get self-governance back.

Home rule defenders are largely in denial that there is a problem. They probably won't even begin to think of solutions until their rice bowls are in danger.

So in my opinion, the sooner those rice bowls get endangered, the better for everyone involved. You could probably even forestall federal intervention by doing some pretty simple stuff now.

I think the onus ought to be on the people who are demanding an end to local control to show why that step makes sense, not for those of us who believe our locally elected leaders should run the city to somehow prove that.

No idea what you mean by rice bowls.

The last time the feds seized control of the city, it wasn't because of crime, it was because the budget was a disaster. The city is taking steps now to head off such a disaster. You may or may not like those steps -- like raising property taxes -- but the financial situation is way better now than it was when the control board was first imposed.

Keep in mind DC has spent most of its existence as a ward of Congress, only getting home rule in 1973. Home rule lasted all of 22 years (majority under Barry) before the Control Board was needed. The Control Board ended in 2001 and now 23 years later we are again in need of federal oversight. So a return to federal control is really just a return to status quo.

DC has only had one good elected mayor, and he was practically hand-picked by the Control Board. Of the two OK mayors, one only got picked because Barry got busted. That leaves Fenty as the only OK mayor DC voters ever truly picked, and he got bounced after one term. This is hardly a track-record to be proud of. A return to appointed Mayors would almost certainly be an improvement.

As for rice bowls, Urban Dictionary #2 is what I meant: "A protected job, project, program etc..."

But why are we in need of federal oversight? The city is not bankrupt. You disagree with policy choices the elected leaders are making, but that doesn't mean they ought to be replaced by unelected appointees named by people elected in other parts of the country. If you want the city's leaders to make different choices, advocate for those choices or run for office, don't just go crying to Congress and hope they take away the few votes we actually get to cast.

You missed the history here. DC has had an appointed Mayor for most of its history. Elected Mayors are a new development. This is just a "Reject Modernity, Retvrn to Tradition" thing. Elected Mayors have basically run the city into the ground. Why wouldn't we want to go back to an appointed Mayor/Control Board/appointed Council/etc...?

Appointed Mayors have just done a plain better job running the city than Elected ones.

DC was doing quite well with a Democrat led decline in crime through 2020 plus some excellent development throughout the city completely remaking blighted neighborhoods. All of the positive developments through the pandemic occurred under Democratic leadership.

Then yes, after the pandemic, thins went down hill. This also seems to correlate with a decline in the (federally appointed) USAO prosecuting crimes and a finding by the DC Court of Appeals that makes it difficult to prosecute gun crimes based on their interpretation of constitutional law re: search and seizure.

Though now this year, crime is already going back down under Democratic leadership.

I don't conclude from any of this that all Democratic leadership of DC has been bad and ineffective.

I also, frankly, look at the history of congress members from other states using DC for their unhelpful pet political sound bytes like Death with Dignity. I do conclude from this that allowing DC to be ruled by the whims of congress would lead to DC rights taken away like more restriction on abortion.

On the other hand, I'm talking to the 5-ish percent of DC who are adamant republican and want to impose a dictatorship (i.e. don't care if 95% of DC citizens support abortion and don't care if other rights get taken away).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

I think your metaphor of a city of 700,000 people as a child who needs adults to give it permission to run its own affairs is a little ridiculous. What other cities do you think aren't capable of self-government?

Interestingly no one has yet asserted that DC actually behaves in a responsible manner. Plenty of other cities aren't capable of self-government. They can't manage their money, or poison their citizens with lead, or fail to teach children, etc... DC has had or has all of these problems btw.

Other cities get taken over by their states, but since DC is a Federal district, they get taken over by Congress. Those states then get to prove they learned their lesson, and possibly get self-governance back.

Home rule defenders are largely in denial that there is a problem. They probably won't even begin to think of solutions until their rice bowls are in danger.

So in my opinion, the sooner those rice bowls get endangered, the better for everyone involved. You could probably even forestall federal intervention by doing some pretty simple stuff now.

I think the onus ought to be on the people who are demanding an end to local control to show why that step makes sense, not for those of us who believe our locally elected leaders should run the city to somehow prove that.

No idea what you mean by rice bowls.

The last time the feds seized control of the city, it wasn't because of crime, it was because the budget was a disaster. The city is taking steps now to head off such a disaster. You may or may not like those steps -- like raising property taxes -- but the financial situation is way better now than it was when the control board was first imposed.

Not the PP you are responding to, but they made a great point I had never thought about with state takeover. It does seem equivalent. I've lived in a couple cities that had declared bankruptcy and were under stringent conditions. Eventually things turned around. Rice bowl is an expression I've heard before. My husband uses it to mean the things a person is really focused on / cares about - sometimes (not always) to the detriment of the bigger picture. I wonder if he's posting, but he claims not to go in DCUM. More of a x guy.

Right, and D.C. had this happen from 1995 to 2001, when its finances were in horrible condition. D.C. has AAA-rated bond and more than a month's operating expenses held in reserve. Why would you think it should be taken over when it's nowhere near bankruptcy?

Because it is a dangerous city where domestic terrorists are allowed to desecrate the US flag and monuments with impunity.

Oh, you mean at Union Station, which is primarily policed by federal cops, not local ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

I think your metaphor of a city of 700,000 people as a child who needs adults to give it permission to run its own affairs is a little ridiculous. What other cities do you think aren't capable of self-government?

Interestingly no one has yet asserted that DC actually behaves in a responsible manner. Plenty of other cities aren't capable of self-government. They can't manage their money, or poison their citizens with lead, or fail to teach children, etc... DC has had or has all of these problems btw.

Other cities get taken over by their states, but since DC is a Federal district, they get taken over by Congress. Those states then get to prove they learned their lesson, and possibly get self-governance back.

Home rule defenders are largely in denial that there is a problem. They probably won't even begin to think of solutions until their rice bowls are in danger.

So in my opinion, the sooner those rice bowls get endangered, the better for everyone involved. You could probably even forestall federal intervention by doing some pretty simple stuff now.

I think the onus ought to be on the people who are demanding an end to local control to show why that step makes sense, not for those of us who believe our locally elected leaders should run the city to somehow prove that.

No idea what you mean by rice bowls.

The last time the feds seized control of the city, it wasn't because of crime, it was because the budget was a disaster. The city is taking steps now to head off such a disaster. You may or may not like those steps -- like raising property taxes -- but the financial situation is way better now than it was when the control board was first imposed.

Keep in mind DC has spent most of its existence as a ward of Congress, only getting home rule in 1973. Home rule lasted all of 22 years (majority under Barry) before the Control Board was needed. The Control Board ended in 2001 and now 23 years later we are again in need of federal oversight. So a return to federal control is really just a return to status quo.

DC has only had one good elected mayor, and he was practically hand-picked by the Control Board. Of the two OK mayors, one only got picked because Barry got busted. That leaves Fenty as the only OK mayor DC voters ever truly picked, and he got bounced after one term. This is hardly a track-record to be proud of. A return to appointed Mayors would almost certainly be an improvement.

As for rice bowls, Urban Dictionary #2 is what I meant: "A protected job, project, program etc..."

But why are we in need of federal oversight? The city is not bankrupt. You disagree with policy choices the elected leaders are making, but that doesn't mean they ought to be replaced by unelected appointees named by people elected in other parts of the country. If you want the city's leaders to make different choices, advocate for those choices or run for office, don't just go crying to Congress and hope they take away the few votes we actually get to cast.

You missed the history here. DC has had an appointed Mayor for most of its history. Elected Mayors are a new development. This is just a "Reject Modernity, Retvrn to Tradition" thing. Elected Mayors have basically run the city into the ground. Why wouldn't we want to go back to an appointed Mayor/Control Board/appointed Council/etc...?

Appointed Mayors have just done a plain better job running the city than Elected ones.

I didn't miss the history here, my family has lived in D.C. since the 1920s.

Elected mayors have not "basically run the city into the ground" just because crime has spiked over the last few years. We wouldn't want to go back to an appointed mayor/control board because we believe in democracy, and the people who live in the city should have a say in who runs it.

[Anonymous]

Republican led cities are far fewer, yes.

But they also see high crime rates and crime that can rise then drop at times.

Fort Worth TX has a Republican governor and is seeing a rise in gun crimes.

Should the federal government take over there too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republican led cities are far fewer, yes.

But they also see high crime rates and crime that can rise then drop at times.

Fort Worth TX has a Republican governor and is seeing a rise in gun crimes.

Should the federal government take over there too?

*Republican mayor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

I think your metaphor of a city of 700,000 people as a child who needs adults to give it permission to run its own affairs is a little ridiculous. What other cities do you think aren't capable of self-government?

Interestingly no one has yet asserted that DC actually behaves in a responsible manner. Plenty of other cities aren't capable of self-government. They can't manage their money, or poison their citizens with lead, or fail to teach children, etc... DC has had or has all of these problems btw.

Other cities get taken over by their states, but since DC is a Federal district, they get taken over by Congress. Those states then get to prove they learned their lesson, and possibly get self-governance back.

Home rule defenders are largely in denial that there is a problem. They probably won't even begin to think of solutions until their rice bowls are in danger.

So in my opinion, the sooner those rice bowls get endangered, the better for everyone involved. You could probably even forestall federal intervention by doing some pretty simple stuff now.

I think the onus ought to be on the people who are demanding an end to local control to show why that step makes sense, not for those of us who believe our locally elected leaders should run the city to somehow prove that.

No idea what you mean by rice bowls.

The last time the feds seized control of the city, it wasn't because of crime, it was because the budget was a disaster. The city is taking steps now to head off such a disaster. You may or may not like those steps -- like raising property taxes -- but the financial situation is way better now than it was when the control board was first imposed.

Keep in mind DC has spent most of its existence as a ward of Congress, only getting home rule in 1973. Home rule lasted all of 22 years (majority under Barry) before the Control Board was needed. The Control Board ended in 2001 and now 23 years later we are again in need of federal oversight. So a return to federal control is really just a return to status quo.

DC has only had one good elected mayor, and he was practically hand-picked by the Control Board. Of the two OK mayors, one only got picked because Barry got busted. That leaves Fenty as the only OK mayor DC voters ever truly picked, and he got bounced after one term. This is hardly a track-record to be proud of. A return to appointed Mayors would almost certainly be an improvement.

As for rice bowls, Urban Dictionary #2 is what I meant: "A protected job, project, program etc..."

But why are we in need of federal oversight? The city is not bankrupt. You disagree with policy choices the elected leaders are making, but that doesn't mean they ought to be replaced by unelected appointees named by people elected in other parts of the country. If you want the city's leaders to make different choices, advocate for those choices or run for office, don't just go crying to Congress and hope they take away the few votes we actually get to cast.

You missed the history here. DC has had an appointed Mayor for most of its history. Elected Mayors are a new development. This is just a "Reject Modernity, Retvrn to Tradition" thing. Elected Mayors have basically run the city into the ground. Why wouldn't we want to go back to an appointed Mayor/Control Board/appointed Council/etc...?

Appointed Mayors have just done a plain better job running the city than Elected ones.

DC was doing quite well with a Democrat led decline in crime through 2020 plus some excellent development throughout the city completely remaking blighted neighborhoods. All of the positive developments through the pandemic occurred under Democratic leadership.

Then yes, after the pandemic, thins went down hill. This also seems to correlate with a decline in the (federally appointed) USAO prosecuting crimes and a finding by the DC Court of Appeals that makes it difficult to prosecute gun crimes based on their interpretation of constitutional law re: search and seizure.

Though now this year, crime is already going back down under Democratic leadership.

I don't conclude from any of this that all Democratic leadership of DC has been bad and ineffective.

I also, frankly, look at the history of congress members from other states using DC for their unhelpful pet political sound bytes like Death with Dignity. I do conclude from this that allowing DC to be ruled by the whims of congress would lead to DC rights taken away like more restriction on abortion.

On the other hand, I'm talking to the 5-ish percent of DC who are adamant republican and want to impose a dictatorship (i.e. don't care if 95% of DC citizens support abortion and don't care if other rights get taken away).

Sure, the Death with Dignity type stuff is annoying grand standing. But schools closed forever, decriminalizing fare evasion and letting criminals run the city, etc... is way worse. Elected officials do the dumbest thing over and over again here, never learning from their mistakes because people will vote blue no matter who. You need an outside feedback mechanism to restrain the worst impulses, and it just so happens we have a historically appropriate one.

If DC voters actually were as smart as they claim, they would see this coming a mile away and moderate their own nonsense ahead of time. Frankly, Democrats don't even want half of what the Mayor/Council pushes, but can't conceive of doing anything but reelecting the same loonies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

I think your metaphor of a city of 700,000 people as a child who needs adults to give it permission to run its own affairs is a little ridiculous. What other cities do you think aren't capable of self-government?

Interestingly no one has yet asserted that DC actually behaves in a responsible manner. Plenty of other cities aren't capable of self-government. They can't manage their money, or poison their citizens with lead, or fail to teach children, etc... DC has had or has all of these problems btw.

Other cities get taken over by their states, but since DC is a Federal district, they get taken over by Congress. Those states then get to prove they learned their lesson, and possibly get self-governance back.

Home rule defenders are largely in denial that there is a problem. They probably won't even begin to think of solutions until their rice bowls are in danger.

So in my opinion, the sooner those rice bowls get endangered, the better for everyone involved. You could probably even forestall federal intervention by doing some pretty simple stuff now.

I think the onus ought to be on the people who are demanding an end to local control to show why that step makes sense, not for those of us who believe our locally elected leaders should run the city to somehow prove that.

No idea what you mean by rice bowls.

The last time the feds seized control of the city, it wasn't because of crime, it was because the budget was a disaster. The city is taking steps now to head off such a disaster. You may or may not like those steps -- like raising property taxes -- but the financial situation is way better now than it was when the control board was first imposed.

Keep in mind DC has spent most of its existence as a ward of Congress, only getting home rule in 1973. Home rule lasted all of 22 years (majority under Barry) before the Control Board was needed. The Control Board ended in 2001 and now 23 years later we are again in need of federal oversight. So a return to federal control is really just a return to status quo.

DC has only had one good elected mayor, and he was practically hand-picked by the Control Board. Of the two OK mayors, one only got picked because Barry got busted. That leaves Fenty as the only OK mayor DC voters ever truly picked, and he got bounced after one term. This is hardly a track-record to be proud of. A return to appointed Mayors would almost certainly be an improvement.

As for rice bowls, Urban Dictionary #2 is what I meant: "A protected job, project, program etc..."

But why are we in need of federal oversight? The city is not bankrupt. You disagree with policy choices the elected leaders are making, but that doesn't mean they ought to be replaced by unelected appointees named by people elected in other parts of the country. If you want the city's leaders to make different choices, advocate for those choices or run for office, don't just go crying to Congress and hope they take away the few votes we actually get to cast.

You missed the history here. DC has had an appointed Mayor for most of its history. Elected Mayors are a new development. This is just a "Reject Modernity, Retvrn to Tradition" thing. Elected Mayors have basically run the city into the ground. Why wouldn't we want to go back to an appointed Mayor/Control Board/appointed Council/etc...?

Appointed Mayors have just done a plain better job running the city than Elected ones.

DC was doing quite well with a Democrat led decline in crime through 2020 plus some excellent development throughout the city completely remaking blighted neighborhoods. All of the positive developments through the pandemic occurred under Democratic leadership.

Then yes, after the pandemic, thins went down hill. This also seems to correlate with a decline in the (federally appointed) USAO prosecuting crimes and a finding by the DC Court of Appeals that makes it difficult to prosecute gun crimes based on their interpretation of constitutional law re: search and seizure.

Though now this year, crime is already going back down under Democratic leadership.

I don't conclude from any of this that all Democratic leadership of DC has been bad and ineffective.

I also, frankly, look at the history of congress members from other states using DC for their unhelpful pet political sound bytes like Death with Dignity. I do conclude from this that allowing DC to be ruled by the whims of congress would lead to DC rights taken away like more restriction on abortion.

On the other hand, I'm talking to the 5-ish percent of DC who are adamant republican and want to impose a dictatorship (i.e. don't care if 95% of DC citizens support abortion and don't care if other rights get taken away).

Sure, the Death with Dignity type stuff is annoying grand standing. But schools closed forever, decriminalizing fare evasion and letting criminals run the city, etc... is way worse. Elected officials do the dumbest thing over and over again here, never learning from their mistakes because people will vote blue no matter who. You need an outside feedback mechanism to restrain the worst impulses, and it just so happens we have a historically appropriate one.

If DC voters actually were as smart as they claim, they would see this coming a mile away and moderate their own nonsense ahead of time. Frankly, Democrats don't even want half of what the Mayor/Council pushes, but can't conceive of doing anything but reelecting the same loonies.

Your complaints occurred across other cities in the US. I was just in nyc and watched some people duck under the subway gates in the village.

This does not lead to a logical assumption that DC citizens lose their rights (and abortion is a big damn right!) when other cities with these ups and downs do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

I think your metaphor of a city of 700,000 people as a child who needs adults to give it permission to run its own affairs is a little ridiculous. What other cities do you think aren't capable of self-government?

Interestingly no one has yet asserted that DC actually behaves in a responsible manner. Plenty of other cities aren't capable of self-government. They can't manage their money, or poison their citizens with lead, or fail to teach children, etc... DC has had or has all of these problems btw.

Other cities get taken over by their states, but since DC is a Federal district, they get taken over by Congress. Those states then get to prove they learned their lesson, and possibly get self-governance back.

Home rule defenders are largely in denial that there is a problem. They probably won't even begin to think of solutions until their rice bowls are in danger.

So in my opinion, the sooner those rice bowls get endangered, the better for everyone involved. You could probably even forestall federal intervention by doing some pretty simple stuff now.

I think the onus ought to be on the people who are demanding an end to local control to show why that step makes sense, not for those of us who believe our locally elected leaders should run the city to somehow prove that.

No idea what you mean by rice bowls.

The last time the feds seized control of the city, it wasn't because of crime, it was because the budget was a disaster. The city is taking steps now to head off such a disaster. You may or may not like those steps -- like raising property taxes -- but the financial situation is way better now than it was when the control board was first imposed.

Keep in mind DC has spent most of its existence as a ward of Congress, only getting home rule in 1973. Home rule lasted all of 22 years (majority under Barry) before the Control Board was needed. The Control Board ended in 2001 and now 23 years later we are again in need of federal oversight. So a return to federal control is really just a return to status quo.

DC has only had one good elected mayor, and he was practically hand-picked by the Control Board. Of the two OK mayors, one only got picked because Barry got busted. That leaves Fenty as the only OK mayor DC voters ever truly picked, and he got bounced after one term. This is hardly a track-record to be proud of. A return to appointed Mayors would almost certainly be an improvement.

As for rice bowls, Urban Dictionary #2 is what I meant: "A protected job, project, program etc..."

But why are we in need of federal oversight? The city is not bankrupt. You disagree with policy choices the elected leaders are making, but that doesn't mean they ought to be replaced by unelected appointees named by people elected in other parts of the country. If you want the city's leaders to make different choices, advocate for those choices or run for office, don't just go crying to Congress and hope they take away the few votes we actually get to cast.

You missed the history here. DC has had an appointed Mayor for most of its history. Elected Mayors are a new development. This is just a "Reject Modernity, Retvrn to Tradition" thing. Elected Mayors have basically run the city into the ground. Why wouldn't we want to go back to an appointed Mayor/Control Board/appointed Council/etc...?

Appointed Mayors have just done a plain better job running the city than Elected ones.

DC was doing quite well with a Democrat led decline in crime through 2020 plus some excellent development throughout the city completely remaking blighted neighborhoods. All of the positive developments through the pandemic occurred under Democratic leadership.

Then yes, after the pandemic, thins went down hill. This also seems to correlate with a decline in the (federally appointed) USAO prosecuting crimes and a finding by the DC Court of Appeals that makes it difficult to prosecute gun crimes based on their interpretation of constitutional law re: search and seizure.

Though now this year, crime is already going back down under Democratic leadership.

I don't conclude from any of this that all Democratic leadership of DC has been bad and ineffective.

I also, frankly, look at the history of congress members from other states using DC for their unhelpful pet political sound bytes like Death with Dignity. I do conclude from this that allowing DC to be ruled by the whims of congress would lead to DC rights taken away like more restriction on abortion.

On the other hand, I'm talking to the 5-ish percent of DC who are adamant republican and want to impose a dictatorship (i.e. don't care if 95% of DC citizens support abortion and don't care if other rights get taken away).

Sure, the Death with Dignity type stuff is annoying grand standing. But schools closed forever, decriminalizing fare evasion and letting criminals run the city, etc... is way worse. Elected officials do the dumbest thing over and over again here, never learning from their mistakes because people will vote blue no matter who. You need an outside feedback mechanism to restrain the worst impulses, and it just so happens we have a historically appropriate one.

If DC voters actually were as smart as they claim, they would see this coming a mile away and moderate their own nonsense ahead of time. Frankly, Democrats don't even want half of what the Mayor/Council pushes, but can't conceive of doing anything but reelecting the same loonies.

Your complaints occurred across other cities in the US. I was just in nyc and watched some people duck under the subway gates in the village.

This does not lead to a logical assumption that DC citizens lose their rights (and abortion is a big damn right!) when other cities with these ups and downs do not.

DP and the risk of DC losing abortion access is a big damn effing deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

Who's "we" in this sentence? In the US I live in, you're an adult at age 18, regardless of others' opinions about your decision-making capabilities.

Wow, where are you posting from? Because everyone in DC knows that the age of childhood for criminal is set at 26 years of age.

That reason alone is why DC requires outside governance. Add in allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections, proves DC is incapable of self governance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

Who's "we" in this sentence? In the US I live in, you're an adult at age 18, regardless of others' opinions about your decision-making capabilities.

Wow, where are you posting from? Because everyone in DC knows that the age of childhood for criminal is set at 26 years of age.

That reason alone is why DC requires outside governance. Add in allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections, proves DC is incapable of self governance.

There are other states/municipalities that also allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Other states are also looking at raise the age laws for criminal prosecution. Do you want to override the democratic rights of citizens in other US states as well because you disagree with the policies their elected local governments implement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

Who's "we" in this sentence? In the US I live in, you're an adult at age 18, regardless of others' opinions about your decision-making capabilities.

Wow, where are you posting from? Because everyone in DC knows that the age of childhood for criminal is set at 26 years of age.

That reason alone is why DC requires outside governance. Add in allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections, proves DC is incapable of self governance.

Alabama (red state!) has a law that allows for under age 21 to be prosecuted as a juvenile.

South Carolina (red state!-ish) has a similar law for age 25.

I suppose we should also usurp the voting rights of the US citizens in those states.

[Anonymous]

Tony Williams, our best mayor, was a Democrat on paper. Leadership wise, he was smack in the middle..which we need so much more of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe republicans should focus on their own trash districts, many of which have far higher crime and poverty and crappier education than DC.

We are a large and complicated city and congressional representatives are already tied down with addressing the needs of their own constituents that they are supposed to represent.

There is no possible way that congress has the time to actually get into the nitty gritty detail of governing our city.... other than to enact some 'pet' issues for show and media sound bytes.

It is really a simple three step process:

1. Arrest those who commit crimes.
2. Have actual trials for those arrested.
3. Have those convicted of crimes spend time in jail. Extra 15 years if a weapon is used in commission of the crime.

Even those dim witted representatives from the South and the flyover states can figure it out.

lol then why haven’t they figured it out yet? there are many reforms that could improve criminal justice in DC - confirming judges in a timely manner is a big one. there’s nothing stopping Mr Jr Rep from Flyover State from drafting a bill to improve criminal justice in DC.

But we all know what this really is: just another node in the culture wars. Instead of judges, blather about right-on-red being an American entitlement.

+1 the fact they aren't working to confirm judges and fill vacancies RIGHT NOW is evidence they don't actually give a sh*t.

Have you seen some of the gems Biden has sent up for confirmation? These folks aren’t there to convict criminals.

Judicial nominations have to be a political compromise. If not it becomes a stalemate and no judges will ever get confirmed. This may be less disruptive for federal judges but it’s extremely disruptive for DC.

+1 and is a reason DC needs self government rather than being dependent on the whims of congress regardless of who has the majority

We already are held hostage between political parties and it would only get worse to put more bureaucracy in the hands of people who have no interest motivation nor time to govern our city.

Self governance would be great, but DC has demonstrated time and again that it is not capable of self governance. This is in part because DC is a one-party town, so there is no natural check to the worst behaviors of the governing party. DC absolutely needs some sort of outside force to achieve any sort of sanity. Give DC more control over itself in its current state, and it will descend into madness that much quicker.

Give some examples of how D.C. has demonstrated that time and again, that it is "not capable of self governance." "Elected officials make decisions I disagree with" does not count.

We generally consider children capable of self-governance when they stop making decisions that harm themselves and others. Additionally, the ability to accept responsibility when things go wrong, and correct behavior are hallmarks of being ready for self-governance.

So let's just take crime for example. Raising the age of childhood to 26, hobbling the police, no-papering anyone actually arrested, shaming anyone who actually cares about crime, denying there was a problem and then trying to blame anyone but themselves for the problem seems pretty governance-incapable to me. What do you think?

Who's "we" in this sentence? In the US I live in, you're an adult at age 18, regardless of others' opinions about your decision-making capabilities.

Wow, where are you posting from? Because everyone in DC knows that the age of childhood for criminal is set at 26 years of age.

That reason alone is why DC requires outside governance. Add in allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections, proves DC is incapable of self governance.

Non-citizens are also allowed to vote in local elections in San Francisco and Oakland and in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, Mount Rainier and Garrett Park, Maryland. I suppose someone better shut down those local governments, too?