Bowser is testifying again in favor of statehood, while DC govt dissembles on statehood costs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was born here and could give two figs for statehood. It's a totally drummed up hipster cause.

You don’t care that 700,000 Americans have zero say in Federal matters??

Statehood is long overdue, and creating the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is a way of correcting a historical error

First, these are 700,000 Americans who choose to live where they live; they are not forced to live in DC. Second, the DC Delegate can — among other things — introduce legislation, sit on and vote in committees, and speak on the House floor. To say that DC residents have “zero say in Federal matters” is flat out wrong.

If you wish to have a voting member of Congress and two Senators, you have the freedom to move to any of the 50 states. No one will stop you.

If the colonists had your attitude, we would still be eating tea and crumpets and praising our Britsh overlords.

Uh, no.

Uh, yes. You'd be a loyalist, tut-tutting at the colonists agitating for representation, saying that they knew that they would be taxed without representation when they moved to the colonies, and that if they wanted to petition the king they should've stayed in England.

Not even remotely close. But do go on prattling about and concocting more baloney. I find it entertaining.

[Anonymous]

I'd be for statehood if the new state adopts a constitution that requires a 75% super majority in a popular referendum in order to raise taxes. Let's see how blasé Bowowser and and friends are about the cost of statehood then and how quickly they walk back from their claims that DC has plenty of money to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be for statehood if the new state adopts a constitution that requires a 75% super majority in a popular referendum in order to raise taxes.

What other state is subject to the same demand? This should be rich...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When the District government can't even maintain a simple bridge over I-295, its outrageous that Bowser's people shrug off the extra billions on dollars in recurring costs that statehood would cost Washington DC.

Yes of course, bridges haven't collapsed anywhere in the US outside of DC. Oh, that's right, they had the I-35 collapse in Minnesota. I guess we should revoke Minnesota's statehood, by your logic.

The amount of stupid people in America makes me sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the District government can't even maintain a simple bridge over I-295, its outrageous that Bowser's people shrug off the extra billions on dollars in recurring costs that statehood would cost Washington DC.

Yes of course, bridges haven't collapsed anywhere in the US outside of DC. Oh, that's right, they had the I-35 collapse in Minnesota. I guess we should revoke Minnesota's statehood, by your logic.

The amount of stupid people in America makes me sad.

The truck hit the bridge is from SS. I guess DC can ask MD to pay for a new bridge.
By the way, DC could charge everyone who goes into DC an entry fee everyday. Residents who live outside of DC should pay for the road they use, the water they drink, and the air they breath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the District government can't even maintain a simple bridge over I-295, its outrageous that Bowser's people shrug off the extra billions on dollars in recurring costs that statehood would cost Washington DC.

Yes of course, bridges haven't collapsed anywhere in the US outside of DC. Oh, that's right, they had the I-35 collapse in Minnesota. I guess we should revoke Minnesota's statehood, by your logic.

The amount of stupid people in America makes me sad.

The truck hit the bridge is from SS. I guess DC can ask MD to pay for a new bridge.
By the way, DC could charge everyone who goes into DC an entry fee everyday. Residents who live outside of DC should pay for the road they use, the water they drink, and the air they breath.

Go ask the VA and MD Senators and congressman (gasp, all Democrats) if they like that idea and come tell us what they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the District government can't even maintain a simple bridge over I-295, its outrageous that Bowser's people shrug off the extra billions on dollars in recurring costs that statehood would cost Washington DC.

Yes of course, bridges haven't collapsed anywhere in the US outside of DC. Oh, that's right, they had the I-35 collapse in Minnesota. I guess we should revoke Minnesota's statehood, by your logic.

The amount of stupid people in America makes me sad.

The truck hit the bridge is from SS. I guess DC can ask MD to pay for a new bridge.
By the way, DC could charge everyone who goes into DC an entry fee everyday. Residents who live outside of DC should pay for the road they use, the water they drink, and the air they breath.

DC can’t pass a law like that because it’s not a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the District government can't even maintain a simple bridge over I-295, its outrageous that Bowser's people shrug off the extra billions on dollars in recurring costs that statehood would cost Washington DC.

Yes of course, bridges haven't collapsed anywhere in the US outside of DC. Oh, that's right, they had the I-35 collapse in Minnesota. I guess we should revoke Minnesota's statehood, by your logic.

The amount of stupid people in America makes me sad.

The truck hit the bridge is from SS. I guess DC can ask MD to pay for a new bridge.
By the way, DC could charge everyone who goes into DC an entry fee everyday. Residents who live outside of DC should pay for the road they use, the water they drink, and the air they breath.

DC can’t pass a law like that because it’s not a state.

Not yet, but soon it will be the State of Washington, Douglass Commonweslth

[Anonymous]

It’s hard to take DC’s cries for democracy seriously when it’s leaders and voters have trampled over the City constitution that explicitly states that of the four at-large seats on the Council, “not more than two of the at-large members shall be nominated by the same political party.” The two independent in name only at-large members are actually Democrats. There is literally no other “state” where a single party controls EVERY elected office. It’s just not healthy and frankly laughable that we are even having this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to take DC’s cries for democracy seriously when it’s leaders and voters have trampled over the City constitution that explicitly states that of the four at-large seats on the Council, “not more than two of the at-large members shall be nominated by the same political party.” The two independent in name only at-large members are actually Democrats. There is literally no other “state” where a single party controls EVERY elected office. It’s just not healthy and frankly laughable that we are even having this conversation.

It sounds like Republicans should try running candidates with more appealing policy positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was born here and could give two figs for statehood. It's a totally drummed up hipster cause.

You don’t care that 700,000 Americans have zero say in Federal matters??

Statehood is long overdue, and creating the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is a way of correcting a historical error

First, these are 700,000 Americans who choose to live where they live; they are not forced to live in DC. Second, the DC Delegate can — among other things — introduce legislation, sit on and vote in committees, and speak on the House floor. To say that DC residents have “zero say in Federal matters” is flat out wrong.

If you wish to have a voting member of Congress and two Senators, you have the freedom to move to any of the 50 states. No one will stop you.

If the colonists had your attitude, we would still be eating tea and crumpets and praising our Britsh overlords.

Uh, no.

Uh, yes. You'd be a loyalist, tut-tutting at the colonists agitating for representation, saying that they knew that they would be taxed without representation when they moved to the colonies, and that if they wanted to petition the king they should've stayed in England.

Not even remotely close. But do go on prattling about and concocting more baloney. I find it entertaining.

Tell us why the situations aren't analagous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

Why are you mad at the PP? They are only using the name formally adopted by the council. They are the ones that did it because they want to retain the name “Washington, DC” and continue to use the “DC” abbreviation.

So they call it the “State of Washington” and say that DC stands for “Douglass Commonwealth”. That’s the official stance of the council. Go argue with them about how stupid it is.

https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/Constitution-of-the-State-of-Washington-DC.pdf

Terrible name. But not surprising, just look at the city council.

[Anonymous]

Admit DC as a state, and move the new federal district to a brownfield New City in Ft. Leonard Wood, MO, near the population center of the country.

Make it a requirement for residents of this city to retain permanent residency in the existing states.

Move all the functions of the federal government that can't be dispersed here.

Expand the congress to at least 1,000 while we're at it. 3,000 would be better.

Allow any group of contiguous US Counties who's population exceeds that of the smallest extant state to form a new state.

Admit PR as well. Cuba, too, if they want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admit DC as a state, and move the new federal district to a brownfield New City in Ft. Leonard Wood, MO, near the population center of the country.

Make it a requirement for residents of this city to retain permanent residency in the existing states.

Move all the functions of the federal government that can't be dispersed here.

Expand the congress to at least 1,000 while we're at it. 3,000 would be better.

Allow any group of contiguous US Counties who's population exceeds that of the smallest extant state to form a new state.

Admit PR as well. Cuba, too, if they want it.

There’s no mechanism in the Constitution for people who are already part of a state to become a new state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to take DC’s cries for democracy seriously when it’s leaders and voters have trampled over the City constitution that explicitly states that of the four at-large seats on the Council, “not more than two of the at-large members shall be nominated by the same political party.” The two independent in name only at-large members are actually Democrats. There is literally no other “state” where a single party controls EVERY elected office. It’s just not healthy and frankly laughable that we are even having this conversation.

It sounds like Republicans should try running candidates with more appealing policy positions.

And if DC is serious about democracy, they need to adopt ranked choice voting and consider a system like California where the top vote getters in the primary get on the fall ballot, regardless of party. At present, someone running for the Council or even for the mayor’s office can get less than 20 percent in a multi candidate Democratic primary and is good as elected to the office.