US House GOP bans DC Mayor from House Floor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

[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:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

How do floor privileges for the mayor give DC a voice in Congress? DC’s voice in Congress is DC’s representative named Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not allowing the mayor of DC floor privileges doesn’t silence anyone, spare the histrionics. Bowser herself said that it didn’t make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

God, it’s so precious that you think a Republican House in 2023 gives a single, solitary damn about “doing the people’s business.”

[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:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

How do floor privileges for the mayor give DC a voice in Congress? DC’s voice in Congress is DC’s representative named Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not allowing the mayor of DC floor privileges doesn’t silence anyone, spare the histrionics. Bowser herself said that it didn’t make a difference.

*sigh* Did you actually misunderstand my post or are you posting in bad faith? I’d like to believe the former, but I suspect it’s the latter, especially since you have once again deflected instead of answering the question.

The “voice”part was about territories, not DC. You know the US has territories, right?

The mayor part was about allowing the mayor, as the elected leader of DC, to address Congress directly on issues specific to DC since Congress has ultimate control over DC. That is a separate function from the quasi-representative function performed by Eleanor Holmes Norton.

But in the end, as noted, you have again failed to answer the question. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that you have done so because you know there is no valid, substantive and constructive reason, and that this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness by Republicans. With a dose of racism too.

[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:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

How do floor privileges for the mayor give DC a voice in Congress? DC’s voice in Congress is DC’s representative named Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not allowing the mayor of DC floor privileges doesn’t silence anyone, spare the histrionics. Bowser herself said that it didn’t make a difference.

*sigh* Did you actually misunderstand my post or are you posting in bad faith? I’d like to believe the former, but I suspect it’s the latter, especially since you have once again deflected instead of answering the question.

The “voice”part was about territories, not DC. You know the US has territories, right?

The mayor part was about allowing the mayor, as the elected leader of DC, to address Congress directly on issues specific to DC since Congress has ultimate control over DC. That is a separate function from the quasi-representative function performed by Eleanor Holmes Norton.

But in the end, as noted, you have again failed to answer the question. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that you have done so because you know there is no valid, substantive and constructive reason, and that this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness by Republicans. With a dose of racism too.

Which territories are now “denied a voice”?

How would floor privileges allow the mayor “to address Congress directly”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

God, it’s so precious that you think a Republican House in 2023 gives a single, solitary damn about “doing the people’s business.”

Apparently republicans can’t even make this claim with a straight face anymore since they keep dodging questions about it.

[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:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

How do floor privileges for the mayor give DC a voice in Congress? DC’s voice in Congress is DC’s representative named Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not allowing the mayor of DC floor privileges doesn’t silence anyone, spare the histrionics. Bowser herself said that it didn’t make a difference.

*sigh* Did you actually misunderstand my post or are you posting in bad faith? I’d like to believe the former, but I suspect it’s the latter, especially since you have once again deflected instead of answering the question.

The “voice”part was about territories, not DC. You know the US has territories, right?

The mayor part was about allowing the mayor, as the elected leader of DC, to address Congress directly on issues specific to DC since Congress has ultimate control over DC. That is a separate function from the quasi-representative function performed by Eleanor Holmes Norton.

But in the end, as noted, you have again failed to answer the question. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that you have done so because you know there is no valid, substantive and constructive reason, and that this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness by Republicans. With a dose of racism too.

Which territories are now “denied a voice”?

How would floor privileges allow the mayor “to address Congress directly”?

If these privileges are so unnecessary, why not strip all state governors of the privilege as well? Why target just DC?

[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:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

How do floor privileges for the mayor give DC a voice in Congress? DC’s voice in Congress is DC’s representative named Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not allowing the mayor of DC floor privileges doesn’t silence anyone, spare the histrionics. Bowser herself said that it didn’t make a difference.

*sigh* Did you actually misunderstand my post or are you posting in bad faith? I’d like to believe the former, but I suspect it’s the latter, especially since you have once again deflected instead of answering the question.

The “voice”part was about territories, not DC. You know the US has territories, right?

The mayor part was about allowing the mayor, as the elected leader of DC, to address Congress directly on issues specific to DC since Congress has ultimate control over DC. That is a separate function from the quasi-representative function performed by Eleanor Holmes Norton.

But in the end, as noted, you have again failed to answer the question. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that you have done so because you know there is no valid, substantive and constructive reason, and that this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness by Republicans. With a dose of racism too.

Which territories are now “denied a voice”?

How would floor privileges allow the mayor “to address Congress directly”?

If these privileges are so unnecessary, why not strip all state governors of the privilege as well? Why target just DC?

They didn’t just target DC. They just reverted to pre-2021 rules. It’s okay for Republicans not to view DC as having the same status, rights and privileges as a state because it doesn’t. This is not controversial.

[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:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

How do floor privileges for the mayor give DC a voice in Congress? DC’s voice in Congress is DC’s representative named Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not allowing the mayor of DC floor privileges doesn’t silence anyone, spare the histrionics. Bowser herself said that it didn’t make a difference.

*sigh* Did you actually misunderstand my post or are you posting in bad faith? I’d like to believe the former, but I suspect it’s the latter, especially since you have once again deflected instead of answering the question.

The “voice”part was about territories, not DC. You know the US has territories, right?

The mayor part was about allowing the mayor, as the elected leader of DC, to address Congress directly on issues specific to DC since Congress has ultimate control over DC. That is a separate function from the quasi-representative function performed by Eleanor Holmes Norton.

But in the end, as noted, you have again failed to answer the question. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that you have done so because you know there is no valid, substantive and constructive reason, and that this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness by Republicans. With a dose of racism too.

Which territories are now “denied a voice”?

How would floor privileges allow the mayor “to address Congress directly”?

If these privileges are so unnecessary, why not strip all state governors of the privilege as well? Why target just DC?

They didn’t just target DC. They just reverted to pre-2021 rules. It’s okay for Republicans not to view DC as having the same status, rights and privileges as a state because it doesn’t. This is not controversial.

Why only go back that far and not further?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This.

Great initiative by GOP. Let the Mayor focus on fixing DC -- her job.

[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:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

How do floor privileges for the mayor give DC a voice in Congress? DC’s voice in Congress is DC’s representative named Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not allowing the mayor of DC floor privileges doesn’t silence anyone, spare the histrionics. Bowser herself said that it didn’t make a difference.

*sigh* Did you actually misunderstand my post or are you posting in bad faith? I’d like to believe the former, but I suspect it’s the latter, especially since you have once again deflected instead of answering the question.

The “voice”part was about territories, not DC. You know the US has territories, right?

The mayor part was about allowing the mayor, as the elected leader of DC, to address Congress directly on issues specific to DC since Congress has ultimate control over DC. That is a separate function from the quasi-representative function performed by Eleanor Holmes Norton.

But in the end, as noted, you have again failed to answer the question. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that you have done so because you know there is no valid, substantive and constructive reason, and that this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness by Republicans. With a dose of racism too.

Which territories are now “denied a voice”?

How would floor privileges allow the mayor “to address Congress directly”?

If these privileges are so unnecessary, why not strip all state governors of the privilege as well? Why target just DC?

They didn’t just target DC. They just reverted to pre-2021 rules. It’s okay for Republicans not to view DC as having the same status, rights and privileges as a state because it doesn’t. This is not controversial.

DP. You get that you’re not fooling anyone, right? We can all see your inability to provide a legitimate reason for this decision.

[Anonymous]

This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

This is correct. It is also correct that when Democrats did it 2 years ago, it was also virtue signaling. It is also a clear political statement from Republicans that they will not be treating DC as equivalent to a state like Democrats do or entertain any potential statehood considerations. That’s just politics.