Republicans are revving up for a D.C. smackdown

[Anonymous]

These non citizens need to take drivers education course before they take the drivers test. You would think they know what the word "STOP" means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These non citizens need to take drivers education course before they take the drivers test. You would think they know what the word "STOP" means.

Many noncitizens come from English-speaking countries, have green cards, and are smarter than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

What are you smoking

Dictatorship means no freedom of choice only one party has lawsuits in swing states only to stop us from having a choice of not installing Don as dictator ie king of the US
Only one party has taken over the Election commission in GA to stop the right of the people to vote for who they want!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

Its just a matter of looking at trend lines and getting out ahead of them. Some people can see where this is heading, and others can't until disaster is already happening. Its just a matter of time before the CRE collapse leads to a budget collapse, during a collapse of law and order. Luminaries will once again be holding their hat out for Congress to save them.

As much as people like to hate on the GOP, and often they have good reasons, your average GOP Congress critter at least understands that you need to put criminals in jail. That's something the super educated ruling class of DC has unlearned with tragic consequences. A period of Congressional rule is the medicine this city needs.

That being said, the President appointing a Mayor is an even better solution. They have a much better track record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

Its just a matter of looking at trend lines and getting out ahead of them. Some people can see where this is heading, and others can't until disaster is already happening. Its just a matter of time before the CRE collapse leads to a budget collapse, during a collapse of law and order. Luminaries will once again be holding their hat out for Congress to save them.

As much as people like to hate on the GOP, and often they have good reasons, your average GOP Congress critter at least understands that you need to put criminals in jail. That's something the super educated ruling class of DC has unlearned with tragic consequences. A period of Congressional rule is the medicine this city needs.

That being said, the President appointing a Mayor is an even better solution. They have a much better track record.

^^oh see, one in the wild. SURE you care about DC, sure you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

Its just a matter of looking at trend lines and getting out ahead of them. Some people can see where this is heading, and others can't until disaster is already happening. Its just a matter of time before the CRE collapse leads to a budget collapse, during a collapse of law and order. Luminaries will once again be holding their hat out for Congress to save them.

As much as people like to hate on the GOP, and often they have good reasons, your average GOP Congress critter at least understands that you need to put criminals in jail. That's something the super educated ruling class of DC has unlearned with tragic consequences. A period of Congressional rule is the medicine this city needs.

That being said, the President appointing a Mayor is an even better solution. They have a much better track record.

^^oh see, one in the wild. SURE you care about DC, sure you do.

They seem confused and unable to acknowledge that the USAO that prosecutes DC crime is federally appointed and can be removed now, no need to wait for the election.

Also homicides down 30 percent, all violent crime down 35 percent. Why? What changed? This all happened under Democratic leadership. Meanwhile other cities with GOP leadership (yes they exist) don't do any better on crime. There is no evidence that the GOP has better outcomes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

Its just a matter of looking at trend lines and getting out ahead of them. Some people can see where this is heading, and others can't until disaster is already happening. Its just a matter of time before the CRE collapse leads to a budget collapse, during a collapse of law and order. Luminaries will once again be holding their hat out for Congress to save them.

As much as people like to hate on the GOP, and often they have good reasons, your average GOP Congress critter at least understands that you need to put criminals in jail. That's something the super educated ruling class of DC has unlearned with tragic consequences. A period of Congressional rule is the medicine this city needs.

That being said, the President appointing a Mayor is an even better solution. They have a much better track record.

Sure, if you think it's absolutely unavoidable that the budget will completely collapse as will law and order, I guess your perspective here makes more sense. I don't personally think the "trend lines" are quite as rigid as you do (for one, violent crime is down 35 percent year over year), but whatever.

In reality, I think you're just trying to be a high-handed contrarian jerk, mostly for the sake of trolling, and I don't know whether you believe or care in anything you're saying. You're definitely succeeding in all that, so... congratulations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

Its just a matter of looking at trend lines and getting out ahead of them. Some people can see where this is heading, and others can't until disaster is already happening. Its just a matter of time before the CRE collapse leads to a budget collapse, during a collapse of law and order. Luminaries will once again be holding their hat out for Congress to save them.

As much as people like to hate on the GOP, and often they have good reasons, your average GOP Congress critter at least understands that you need to put criminals in jail. That's something the super educated ruling class of DC has unlearned with tragic consequences. A period of Congressional rule is the medicine this city needs.

That being said, the President appointing a Mayor is an even better solution. They have a much better track record.

Sure, if you think it's absolutely unavoidable that the budget will completely collapse as will law and order, I guess your perspective here makes more sense. I don't personally think the "trend lines" are quite as rigid as you do (for one, violent crime is down 35 percent year over year), but whatever.

In reality, I think you're just trying to be a high-handed contrarian jerk, mostly for the sake of trolling, and I don't know whether you believe or care in anything you're saying. You're definitely succeeding in all that, so... congratulations?

Homicide in particular is down year-over-year, but is almost double from 10 years ago, which is hardly something to hang a hat on. Secondly, people keep glossing over the fact that the President and Senate had to publicly smack down DC's "crime for all" bill. The Y-O-Y trend may have looked quite differently if local preference prevailed. I just find it odd that people are celebrating this decline as if it was something the city did. To me this clearly shows the value of federal intervention. Biden/Thune/Schumer literally saved dozens of lives in my opinion. Give us more please!

Second, you can read the political tea leaves on sister threads for refresher:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1221767.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1220930.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1218724.page

DC voters have learned nothing and will try nothing new. The Feds intervened, saved the city from itself, and the city promptly forgot about it and is back to business as usual. Not being able to learn from mistakes is a hallmark of immaturity and a factor in requiring outside supervision.

There is also the rust-beltish tidbit that DC has lost population since the advent of home rule, while the metro area has more than doubled in size. What other city can say that? American or global capital? Why does this seem acceptable to so many? Why do DC voters have such low expectations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

Its just a matter of looking at trend lines and getting out ahead of them. Some people can see where this is heading, and others can't until disaster is already happening. Its just a matter of time before the CRE collapse leads to a budget collapse, during a collapse of law and order. Luminaries will once again be holding their hat out for Congress to save them.

As much as people like to hate on the GOP, and often they have good reasons, your average GOP Congress critter at least understands that you need to put criminals in jail. That's something the super educated ruling class of DC has unlearned with tragic consequences. A period of Congressional rule is the medicine this city needs.

That being said, the President appointing a Mayor is an even better solution. They have a much better track record.

^^oh see, one in the wild. SURE you care about DC, sure you do.

They seem confused and unable to acknowledge that the USAO that prosecutes DC crime is federally appointed and can be removed now, no need to wait for the election.

Also homicides down 30 percent, all violent crime down 35 percent. Why? What changed? This all happened under Democratic leadership. Meanwhile other cities with GOP leadership (yes they exist) don't do any better on crime. There is no evidence that the GOP has better outcomes

exactly. I’ll believe that the Congressperson from Flyover has good intentions for DC when he sponsors a bill to make substantive improvements to the DC justice system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

Its just a matter of looking at trend lines and getting out ahead of them. Some people can see where this is heading, and others can't until disaster is already happening. Its just a matter of time before the CRE collapse leads to a budget collapse, during a collapse of law and order. Luminaries will once again be holding their hat out for Congress to save them.

As much as people like to hate on the GOP, and often they have good reasons, your average GOP Congress critter at least understands that you need to put criminals in jail. That's something the super educated ruling class of DC has unlearned with tragic consequences. A period of Congressional rule is the medicine this city needs.

That being said, the President appointing a Mayor is an even better solution. They have a much better track record.

Sure, if you think it's absolutely unavoidable that the budget will completely collapse as will law and order, I guess your perspective here makes more sense. I don't personally think the "trend lines" are quite as rigid as you do (for one, violent crime is down 35 percent year over year), but whatever.

In reality, I think you're just trying to be a high-handed contrarian jerk, mostly for the sake of trolling, and I don't know whether you believe or care in anything you're saying. You're definitely succeeding in all that, so... congratulations?

Homicide in particular is down year-over-year, but is almost double from 10 years ago, which is hardly something to hang a hat on. Secondly, people keep glossing over the fact that the President and Senate had to publicly smack down DC's "crime for all" bill. The Y-O-Y trend may have looked quite differently if local preference prevailed. I just find it odd that people are celebrating this decline as if it was something the city did. To me this clearly shows the value of federal intervention. Biden/Thune/Schumer literally saved dozens of lives in my opinion. Give us more please!

Second, you can read the political tea leaves on sister threads for refresher:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1221767.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1220930.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1218724.page

DC voters have learned nothing and will try nothing new. The Feds intervened, saved the city from itself, and the city promptly forgot about it and is back to business as usual. Not being able to learn from mistakes is a hallmark of immaturity and a factor in requiring outside supervision.

There is also the rust-beltish tidbit that DC has lost population since the advent of home rule, while the metro area has more than doubled in size. What other city can say that? American or global capital? Why does this seem acceptable to so many? Why do DC voters have such low expectations?

How did keeping the DC criminal code the status quo lower crime? If that’s true that vetoing the crime bill lowered crime (big IF) then what that shows is that light-handed intervention by Congress can produce results.

And really just stop your dumb*ss trolling. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, believes that a Control Board staffed by Steve Bannon and other highly politicized appointees could adequately run the city. If y’all have such wonderful policy ideas for DC let’s see them now! In the form of legislation and policy plans. Not dumbsh*t FOX news blathering about right on red. The concerning thing was that even Mussolini wanted to make the trains run on time, but it’s quite clear this GOP DC fetish has zero to do with municipal policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back on topic: Looks like I83 (ranked choice) has a chance to make it on the November ballot, and of course the Democratic Party establishment is furious: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/745543/election-reform-measure-initiative-83-can-appear-on-november-ballot-board-rules/

So the question becomes, is it really Home Rule if the Party manages to control what you can vote on?

Yes, Home Rule means local decisionmaking, it doesn't mean every local gets everything they want.

I hope the party loses this and ranked choice voting is adopted, because it makes sense. But let's not pretend this is a Home Rule question. If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, it's very easy to register Democratic just for the primary. You can switch to whatever other registration you like right after that. If you just don't like the fact that the vast majority of voters in D.C. happen to be Democrats, that's fine, too, but that alone is not a reason to wipe out their right to vote on local affairs.

I'll summarize this approach as "its our town to run into the ground as we see fit."

DC is a creature of the Federal government, and the legislation that devolved power to the city (Home Rule Act) can be revoked or modified by Congress at any time, which is something DC Democrats should keep in mind. Their voting "rights" are actually provisional. Much like having a learner's permit allows one to drive within certain parameters. The sooner the DC Democrats remember this, the less painful the inevitable correction will be.

The good news is that the people insisting on local control in DC will probably move out of the city in the next few years anyway, fleeing from the consequences of their own choices.

Again, the condescension toward the idea that your fellow Americans should be able to decide what happens in their own city (which you also maybe live in?) is extremely off-putting. Voting rights in D.C. are not akin to a learner's permit.

At any rate, I don't see what your sneering reply here has to do with what I posted, which is (a) I favor ranked-choice voting and hope the D.C. Democratic Party loses its attempts to block it and (b) there's no conflict between having local control and having party primaries.

Finally, if you think every person who wants local control of D.C. plans to move out of the city in a few years, you're badly mistaken about who supports Home Rule.

You're missing out on the irony of the whole situation. The Democratic Party while crying about statehood and Home Rule, and democracy for Americans, etc... doesn't want voters to have any choice but the pre-approved ones. The reality is that no one wants the people of DC to be making real decisions. Its just a question of which group will be making the decisions for them, and how transparent that control is. I prefer a method that is out in the open and historically effective. Some people cling to the pretend democracy that produces horrible outcomes.

Notably during the Control Board period, DC notables like Eleanor Holmes Norton were in support. For the simple reason that DC needed help fiscally which was clear to all. The current situation is totally different, with DC’s governance unfortunately becoming fodder for a culture war with no relationship to what DC actually needs.

I dislike Charles Allen, think crime is terrible, hated covid school policies. Yet even the biggest DC critics like me see the GOP fulminations about DC for what they are. You will find zero and I mean ZERO support for a control board among people who are stakeholders in DC and care about DC no matter how critical they are.

Anyone who claims they know best about how to “save DC” yet supports the obviously bad faith politicization by the GOP is full of absolute sh*t.

Its just a matter of looking at trend lines and getting out ahead of them. Some people can see where this is heading, and others can't until disaster is already happening. Its just a matter of time before the CRE collapse leads to a budget collapse, during a collapse of law and order. Luminaries will once again be holding their hat out for Congress to save them.

As much as people like to hate on the GOP, and often they have good reasons, your average GOP Congress critter at least understands that you need to put criminals in jail. That's something the super educated ruling class of DC has unlearned with tragic consequences. A period of Congressional rule is the medicine this city needs.

That being said, the President appointing a Mayor is an even better solution. They have a much better track record.

Sure, if you think it's absolutely unavoidable that the budget will completely collapse as will law and order, I guess your perspective here makes more sense. I don't personally think the "trend lines" are quite as rigid as you do (for one, violent crime is down 35 percent year over year), but whatever.

In reality, I think you're just trying to be a high-handed contrarian jerk, mostly for the sake of trolling, and I don't know whether you believe or care in anything you're saying. You're definitely succeeding in all that, so... congratulations?

DC voters have learned nothing and will try nothing new. The Feds intervened, saved the city from itself, and the city promptly forgot about it and is back to business as usual. Not being able to learn from mistakes is a hallmark of immaturity and a factor in requiring outside supervision.

There is also the rust-beltish tidbit that DC has lost population since the advent of home rule, while the metro area has more than doubled in size. What other city can say that? American or global capital? Why does this seem acceptable to so many? Why do DC voters have such low expectations?

I'm cutting your crime discourse, because I think you're trying to make points that go beyond just that and because I think the crime bill and its revisions have been very heavily chewed over on this site already and don't need more input from me.

But do you really think the population shift is because of Home Rule? White (and middle-class black) flight from D.C. revved up into overdrive in 1968, after the riots, which happened, I'd note, under federal control. And the long period of shrinking population reversed itself with the 2010 Census — under local control.

I don't think anyone "forgot" about the control board, but I also don't think the city is "back to business as usual" in any meaningful way on the budget. Even if officials wanted to go back, there are new laws in place now that make it impossible for the city to get into a fiscal position as bad as it was then. You may be worried about a CRE crash, but the city is also legally required to plan for it, to have large budget reserves ahead of time, etc.

Finally, your insistence on calling a city with more than 600,000 residents "immature" just because you disagree with the policies of elected leaders is incredibly obnoxious.