Manchin on DC statehood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If citizens wanted to ensure they were represented re statehood, why would they chose to within the District? By opting to live there, they chose other factors above representation, which is totally fine to do and their right. Clearly representation was not an important factor in deciding where to live. It’s not like representation was taken away once the citizens settled within the District.

Why should people have to move away to get representation? If you're only thinking, "You knew there was no representation when you moved here," you're overlooking the many, many people who were born and raised here, often in families going back generations.

People move all the time for political representaton purposes. Literally daily. States...Countries...Continents...I just don't think it has ever been that big of deal to anyone who chose to live there, or else you wouldn't live there in the first place.

There's ALREADY around a half million who commute into DC for work. Now you expect the 600k who live within the District to clear out and move out to the burbs as well?

Or...you could put DC back into Maryland...that solves all problems. You get the representation that is so clearly desired by all the residents. Nobody has to move. And saves the the District residents from commuting. How bout that? Problem solved.

No, because as has already been stated numerous times in this thread, Maryland doesn't want DC. So since you are good with DC voted being enfranchised by a different state, then I choose Wyoming. Me and my 500,000 other DC voters will be siding with democrats in Wyoming to pick new Senators and voting House member there.

[Anonymous]

Some DC land came from Virginia, so some DC residents could return to Virginia and others to Maryland. If that happened, I believe their property taxes might go up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some DC land came from Virginia, so some DC residents could return to Virginia and others to Maryland. If that happened, I believe their property taxes might go up.

Please don’t comment on this if you don’t know what you’re talking about. DC doesn’t have any of the land it got from Virginia and hasn’t had it for 150+ years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some DC land came from Virginia, so some DC residents could return to Virginia and others to Maryland. If that happened, I believe their property taxes might go up.

Please don’t comment on this if you don’t know what you’re talking about. DC doesn’t have any of the land it got from Virginia and hasn’t had it for 150+ years.

Thank you for correction--sorry!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If citizens wanted to ensure they were represented re statehood, why would they chose to within the District? By opting to live there, they chose other factors above representation, which is totally fine to do and their right. Clearly representation was not an important factor in deciding where to live. It’s not like representation was taken away once the citizens settled within the District.

Why should people have to move away to get representation? If you're only thinking, "You knew there was no representation when you moved here," you're overlooking the many, many people who were born and raised here, often in families going back generations.

People move all the time for political representaton purposes. Literally daily. States...Countries...Continents...I just don't think it has ever been that big of deal to anyone who chose to live there, or else you wouldn't live there in the first place.

There's ALREADY around a half million who commute into DC for work. Now you expect the 600k who live within the District to clear out and move out to the burbs as well?

Or...you could put DC back into Maryland...that solves all problems. You get the representation that is so clearly desired by all the residents. Nobody has to move. And saves the the District residents from commuting. How bout that? Problem solved.

No, because as has already been stated numerous times in this thread, Maryland doesn't want DC. So since you are good with DC voted being enfranchised by a different state, then I choose Wyoming. Me and my 500,000 other DC voters will be siding with democrats in Wyoming to pick new Senators and voting House member there.

Well if it’s been mentioned in this thread, then that must be the way it has to be. Abs great, head to Wyoming. Heck, go wherever you like. That’s what most people do when this type of issue is a major pain point in their lives.

[Anonymous]

No, we aren't moving to Wyoming. We will just get the power to vote there en masse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If citizens wanted to ensure they were represented re statehood, why would they chose to within the District? By opting to live there, they chose other factors above representation, which is totally fine to do and their right. Clearly representation was not an important factor in deciding where to live. It’s not like representation was taken away once the citizens settled within the District.

Why should people have to move away to get representation? If you're only thinking, "You knew there was no representation when you moved here," you're overlooking the many, many people who were born and raised here, often in families going back generations.

People move all the time for political representaton purposes. Literally daily. States...Countries...Continents...I just don't think it has ever been that big of deal to anyone who chose to live there, or else you wouldn't live there in the first place.

There's ALREADY around a half million who commute into DC for work. Now you expect the 600k who live within the District to clear out and move out to the burbs as well?

Or...you could put DC back into Maryland...that solves all problems. You get the representation that is so clearly desired by all the residents. Nobody has to move. And saves the the District residents from commuting. How bout that? Problem solved.

No, because as has already been stated numerous times in this thread, Maryland doesn't want DC. So since you are good with DC voted being enfranchised by a different state, then I choose Wyoming. Me and my 500,000 other DC voters will be siding with democrats in Wyoming to pick new Senators and voting House member there.

Well if it’s been mentioned in this thread, then that must be the way it has to be. Abs great, head to Wyoming. Heck, go wherever you like. That’s what most people do when this type of issue is a major pain point in their lives.

It does seem so simple. Just move DC back into Maryland. Representation is accomplished. Federal gov can make that happen.

[Anonymous]

Maryland doesn't want DC. DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland.

Different cultures, different governments, you name it. It wouldn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maryland doesn't want DC. DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland.

Different cultures, different governments, you name it. It wouldn't work.

Has this been polled by non-partisan groups? Do you know this or think this? Different cultures?? How so? Both are politically aligned and the 2 largest counties in MD surround the District. Of course different governments. Baltimore City has a different government than Annapolis..it's what makes them a city government.

[Anonymous]

I can think of many states and cities across the country that are: 1) in significantly worse shape than D.C., and; 2) have Congressional representation. It's not like statehood is going to make things somehow better in D.C. The city is already better off than most other cities and metro areas in America.

This whole movement is really about giving the Democratic Party two extra guaranteed seats in the Senate.

You can wax poetic or compose sanctimonious tropes all day centered on voting rights and disenfranchisement and blah blah blah...

Call it for what it really is, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can think of many states and cities across the country that are: 1) in significantly worse shape than D.C., and; 2) have Congressional representation. It's not like statehood is going to make things somehow better in D.C. The city is already better off than most other cities and metro areas in America.

This whole movement is really about giving the Democratic Party two extra guaranteed seats in the Senate.

You can wax poetic or compose sanctimonious tropes all day centered on voting rights and disenfranchisement and blah blah blah...

Call it for what it really is, folks.

Statehood isn't about making things better in DC. DC has a AAA bond rating and a $6B rainy day fund and runs a budget surplus every year, including this past COVID year. Yes the schools could be better and there is too much crime, but being a state won't "fix" that. Statehood is about representation in the Congress.

Retroceding to Maryland forces our money to run through Annapolis. We don't want that, and the addition of 700,000 DC residents to MD would forever change the current political balance there. Do you think someone like Gov Hogan would EVER be viable in a state that has DC, Baltimore and PG? No, neither do I, which is why MD doesn't want us.

[Anonymous]

Those who want to make DC part of Maryland: you realize you are conceding that the federal district required by the constitution doesn't need to have the geographic boundaries it currently has. It could be shrunk by the exact amount of land proposed to be made into a new state. Since you therefore have no legal argument against DC statehood, you are left with the indefensible partisan position that DC residents shouldn't have representation because you don't like how they are likely to vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who want to make DC part of Maryland: you realize you are conceding that the federal district required by the constitution doesn't need to have the geographic boundaries it currently has. It could be shrunk by the exact amount of land proposed to be made into a new state. Since you therefore have no legal argument against DC statehood, you are left with the indefensible partisan position that DC residents shouldn't have representation because you don't like how they are likely to vote.

Actually, it's the DC statehood people who have a problem. If they really wanted to have representation, the easiest and most acceptable route is to become part of Maryland. However, they mangle the two issues together and instead push for DC statehood as the only solution for representation, when it clearly is not. In either case, the 23rd amendment is still a problem and would need to be repealed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who want to make DC part of Maryland: you realize you are conceding that the federal district required by the constitution doesn't need to have the geographic boundaries it currently has. It could be shrunk by the exact amount of land proposed to be made into a new state. Since you therefore have no legal argument against DC statehood, you are left with the indefensible partisan position that DC residents shouldn't have representation because you don't like how they are likely to vote.

Actually, it's the DC statehood people who have a problem. If they really wanted to have representation, the easiest and most acceptable route is to become part of Maryland. However, they mangle the two issues together and instead push for DC statehood as the only solution for representation, when it clearly is not. In either case, the 23rd amendment is still a problem and would need to be repealed.

You’re clearly completely unfamiliar with the legislation, which addresses this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can think of many states and cities across the country that are: 1) in significantly worse shape than D.C., and; 2) have Congressional representation. It's not like statehood is going to make things somehow better in D.C. The city is already better off than most other cities and metro areas in America.

This whole movement is really about giving the Democratic Party two extra guaranteed seats in the Senate.

You can wax poetic or compose sanctimonious tropes all day centered on voting rights and disenfranchisement and blah blah blah...

Call it for what it really is, folks.

Of course this is the case or would have been an issue that has been brought up for years on end and not just something printed on a license plate. Dems see it as an opportunity (which it is) and are jumping on it. The vast majority of DC residents I live near (Palisades) have never, ever brought it up. And these are very political people. And as you see, the fact the proponents won't even consider the Maryland option is proof of that. Call it what it is.