Anyone think we might be better off without Home Rule in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. DC should become a state. It has more people than several states.

And we pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 22 states. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. We should be a state and have a say. Either that or you can waive federal tax and repay me a whole heap of wrongfully collected taxes.

No, you pay the same tax rates. DC is just wealthier than other states so total collections are higher. You also receive more federal benefits—higher Medicaid match, TAG, and judiciary. This is not the strongest argument.

If you want the GOP on board, highlight savings to federal government from DC assuming the cost of those programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahaha. It could be Monaco but it’s a freaking Grand Theft Auto

This. If we didn’t have home rule, maybe we’d have a tougher on crime approach to rising crime by Republicans or something. Instead we have a liberal city council that sided with criminals over tax paying citizens out of “equity”.

Did you live here before home rule?

Yes, I’m from here. I lived though the Barry years. I’ve seen decades of violence. I now am seeing a soft on crime approach, even from other residents, that borders on self flagellation. Why should people who pay taxes, don’t commit crime, don’t steal cars and broadcast the joyride on world star or punch someone in the face near Potomac metro to get their iPhone be safer than me and my family?

Also, where are you people posting from? The safety of ward 3?

5 of the D.C. Council seats are up for election in November - have you thought…shockingly…on voting for someone tough on crime? And canvassing for them? Or are you just going to whine on DCUM?

Have you thought, shockingly, that there is no fking chance of that working?

This city went 96% Hillary as an indicator of how liberal it is? Also, ward 7 and 8 voters would never vote for someone who would advocate for a harsher stance on crime. I’m not fking canvassing for sht. There is no chance we get someone serious. We’re going to continue to get a city council that basically allocates all its funding to programs with zero efficacy, or violence interruptors that don’t work or restorative justice that doesn’t help victims or all types of things that don’t work. Charles Allen will slide comfortably to victory and fret and furlough his brow concernedly about a rise in crime, but he won’t take any tangible steps. Then I’ll be stuck with them same clueless weaklings on this forum who don’t want to prosecute criminals, but to empathize with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahaha. It could be Monaco but it’s a freaking Grand Theft Auto

This. If we didn’t have home rule, maybe we’d have a tougher on crime approach to rising crime by Republicans or something. Instead we have a liberal city council that sided with criminals over tax paying citizens out of “equity”.

Did you live here before home rule?

Yes, I’m from here. I lived though the Barry years. I’ve seen decades of violence. I now am seeing a soft on crime approach, even from other residents, that borders on self flagellation. Why should people who pay taxes, don’t commit crime, don’t steal cars and broadcast the joyride on world star or punch someone in the face near Potomac metro to get their iPhone be safer than me and my family?

Also, where are you people posting from? The safety of ward 3?

5 of the D.C. Council seats are up for election in November - have you thought…shockingly…on voting for someone tough on crime? And canvassing for them? Or are you just going to whine on DCUM?

Have you thought, shockingly, that there is no fking chance of that working?

This city went 96% Hillary as an indicator of how liberal it is? Also, ward 7 and 8 voters would never vote for someone who would advocate for a harsher stance on crime. I’m not fking canvassing for sht. There is no chance we get someone serious. We’re going to continue to get a city council that basically allocates all its funding to programs with zero efficacy, or violence interruptors that don’t work or restorative justice that doesn’t help victims or all types of things that don’t work. Charles Allen will slide comfortably to victory and fret and furlough his brow concernedly about a rise in crime, but he won’t take any tangible steps. Then I’ll be stuck with them same clueless weaklings on this forum who don’t want to prosecute criminals, but to empathize with them.

So you think that given the majority of the district votes for x candidate you don’t like means our (limited) voting rights should be taken away? Great grasp of democracy, bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahaha. It could be Monaco but it’s a freaking Grand Theft Auto

This. If we didn’t have home rule, maybe we’d have a tougher on crime approach to rising crime by Republicans or something. Instead we have a liberal city council that sided with criminals over tax paying citizens out of “equity”.

Did you live here before home rule?

Yes, I’m from here. I lived though the Barry years. I’ve seen decades of violence. I now am seeing a soft on crime approach, even from other residents, that borders on self flagellation. Why should people who pay taxes, don’t commit crime, don’t steal cars and broadcast the joyride on world star or punch someone in the face near Potomac metro to get their iPhone be safer than me and my family?

Also, where are you people posting from? The safety of ward 3?

5 of the D.C. Council seats are up for election in November - have you thought…shockingly…on voting for someone tough on crime? And canvassing for them? Or are you just going to whine on DCUM?

Have you thought, shockingly, that there is no fking chance of that working?

This city went 96% Hillary as an indicator of how liberal it is? Also, ward 7 and 8 voters would never vote for someone who would advocate for a harsher stance on crime. I’m not fking canvassing for sht. There is no chance we get someone serious. We’re going to continue to get a city council that basically allocates all its funding to programs with zero efficacy, or violence interruptors that don’t work or restorative justice that doesn’t help victims or all types of things that don’t work. Charles Allen will slide comfortably to victory and fret and furlough his brow concernedly about a rise in crime, but he won’t take any tangible steps. Then I’ll be stuck with them same clueless weaklings on this forum who don’t want to prosecute criminals, but to empathize with them.

So you think that given the majority of the district votes for x candidate you don’t like means our (limited) voting rights should be taken away? Great grasp of democracy, bro.

What I’m saying is that the city keeps electing Uber liberal politicians after liberal politician who must be into bdsm or sadomasochism or something because they seem to relish self flagellating weak on crime policies they implement. They’d rather put tax payers at risk than higher police and allow for tough on crime policing I think if a Republican Congress took control of the city we would have stronger policing and more arrests, and woke liberals would be safe but aghast ar the arrest rates.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahaha. It could be Monaco but it’s a freaking Grand Theft Auto

This. If we didn’t have home rule, maybe we’d have a tougher on crime approach to rising crime by Republicans or something. Instead we have a liberal city council that sided with criminals over tax paying citizens out of “equity”.

Did you live here before home rule?

Yes, I’m from here. I lived though the Barry years. I’ve seen decades of violence. I now am seeing a soft on crime approach, even from other residents, that borders on self flagellation. Why should people who pay taxes, don’t commit crime, don’t steal cars and broadcast the joyride on world star or punch someone in the face near Potomac metro to get their iPhone be safer than me and my family?

Also, where are you people posting from? The safety of ward 3?

5 of the D.C. Council seats are up for election in November - have you thought…shockingly…on voting for someone tough on crime? And canvassing for them? Or are you just going to whine on DCUM?

Have you thought, shockingly, that there is no fking chance of that working?

This city went 96% Hillary as an indicator of how liberal it is? Also, ward 7 and 8 voters would never vote for someone who would advocate for a harsher stance on crime. I’m not fking canvassing for sht. There is no chance we get someone serious. We’re going to continue to get a city council that basically allocates all its funding to programs with zero efficacy, or violence interruptors that don’t work or restorative justice that doesn’t help victims or all types of things that don’t work. Charles Allen will slide comfortably to victory and fret and furlough his brow concernedly about a rise in crime, but he won’t take any tangible steps. Then I’ll be stuck with them same clueless weaklings on this forum who don’t want to prosecute criminals, but to empathize with them.

So you think that given the majority of the district votes for x candidate you don’t like means our (limited) voting rights should be taken away? Great grasp of democracy, bro.

What I’m saying is that the city keeps electing Uber liberal politicians after liberal politician who must be into bdsm or sadomasochism or something because they seem to relish self flagellating weak on crime policies they implement. They’d rather put tax payers at risk than higher police and allow for tough on crime policing I think if a Republican Congress took control of the city we would have stronger policing and more arrests, and woke liberals would be safe but aghast ar the arrest rates.

So your response to the previous poster is "yes". Because DC voters do not vote the way that you think they should, you want their voting right to be removed. As the previous poster sarcastically wrote, you have a great grasp of democracy. Might I suggest that if you are unhappy in DC, rather than putting a bunch of unaccountable Republicans in charge of us, you just move to one of the Republicans' districts?

[Anonymous]

Could one have a referendum where one could choose between no tax and representation
(statehood)? Please!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahaha. It could be Monaco but it’s a freaking Grand Theft Auto

This. If we didn’t have home rule, maybe we’d have a tougher on crime approach to rising crime by Republicans or something. Instead we have a liberal city council that sided with criminals over tax paying citizens out of “equity”.

Did you live here before home rule?

Yes, I’m from here. I lived though the Barry years. I’ve seen decades of violence. I now am seeing a soft on crime approach, even from other residents, that borders on self flagellation. Why should people who pay taxes, don’t commit crime, don’t steal cars and broadcast the joyride on world star or punch someone in the face near Potomac metro to get their iPhone be safer than me and my family?

Also, where are you people posting from? The safety of ward 3?

5 of the D.C. Council seats are up for election in November - have you thought…shockingly…on voting for someone tough on crime? And canvassing for them? Or are you just going to whine on DCUM?

Have you thought, shockingly, that there is no fking chance of that working?

This city went 96% Hillary as an indicator of how liberal it is? Also, ward 7 and 8 voters would never vote for someone who would advocate for a harsher stance on crime. I’m not fking canvassing for sht. There is no chance we get someone serious. We’re going to continue to get a city council that basically allocates all its funding to programs with zero efficacy, or violence interruptors that don’t work or restorative justice that doesn’t help victims or all types of things that don’t work. Charles Allen will slide comfortably to victory and fret and furlough his brow concernedly about a rise in crime, but he won’t take any tangible steps. Then I’ll be stuck with them same clueless weaklings on this forum who don’t want to prosecute criminals, but to empathize with them.

Do you really think the political power in this town is located in W3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has zero, absolutely zero, justification for becoming a state. It's creation from parts of Maryland and Virginia was intentional as a federal district, and nothing more. It can lobby to go back to Maryland if it would like.

yes but when it was created as said federal district, no free white men were intended to be resident within the district, it was intended to have a colored servant population in residence to serve the needs of government officials who were officially domiciled elsewhere, there was no notion that federal government would grow to have the several, permanent administrative functions staffed by people who have been granted the franchise. Income tax was also cruel and unusual but buying a selling people wasn't, the founding fathers were quite brilliant but they didn't foresee everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. DC should become a state. It has more people than several states.

And we pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 22 states. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. We should be a state and have a say. Either that or you can waive federal tax and repay me a whole heap of wrongfully collected taxes.

No, you pay the same tax rates. DC is just wealthier than other states so total collections are higher. You also receive more federal benefits—higher Medicaid match, TAG, and judiciary. This is not the strongest argument.

If you want the GOP on board, highlight savings to federal government from DC assuming the cost of those programs.

Yes, we have higher income because there are for example more advanced degrees per capita than there are in those bottom 22 states. DC is full of hard working professionals, entrepreneurs, world-renowned experts. DC has a high cost of living, which in turn needs to be met with appropriate wages. You want to blame things like Medicaid yet that's not entirely valid, DC medicaid is on par with red states like Alaska and South Dakota but at least we more than pay for ours, as opposed to the 22 states who pay less per capita but who also take much in terms of federal dollars. Most of those 22 are red states.

Your argument isn't a strong one. The GOP needs to get itself on board with REALITY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahaha. It could be Monaco but it’s a freaking Grand Theft Auto

This. If we didn’t have home rule, maybe we’d have a tougher on crime approach to rising crime by Republicans or something. Instead we have a liberal city council that sided with criminals over tax paying citizens out of “equity”.

Did you live here before home rule?

Yes, I’m from here. I lived though the Barry years. I’ve seen decades of violence. I now am seeing a soft on crime approach, even from other residents, that borders on self flagellation. Why should people who pay taxes, don’t commit crime, don’t steal cars and broadcast the joyride on world star or punch someone in the face near Potomac metro to get their iPhone be safer than me and my family?

Also, where are you people posting from? The safety of ward 3?

5 of the D.C. Council seats are up for election in November - have you thought…shockingly…on voting for someone tough on crime? And canvassing for them? Or are you just going to whine on DCUM?

Have you thought, shockingly, that there is no fking chance of that working?

This city went 96% Hillary as an indicator of how liberal it is? Also, ward 7 and 8 voters would never vote for someone who would advocate for a harsher stance on crime. I’m not fking canvassing for sht. There is no chance we get someone serious. We’re going to continue to get a city council that basically allocates all its funding to programs with zero efficacy, or violence interruptors that don’t work or restorative justice that doesn’t help victims or all types of things that don’t work. Charles Allen will slide comfortably to victory and fret and furlough his brow concernedly about a rise in crime, but he won’t take any tangible steps. Then I’ll be stuck with them same clueless weaklings on this forum who don’t want to prosecute criminals, but to empathize with them.

Once again for you morons: DC does not have the power to prosecute criminals. The Dept of Justice - staffed by Presidential appointees - prosecuted criminals in DC. What are your views of how Republicans handled that office in 2016-2020?

[Anonymous]

No, we would not be better off w/o HR. FOH.

As with anything you don't like, work to change it. Organize.

Unlike typing on the computer, it is usually a slow, painful and often seemingly impossible task.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, we would not be better off w/o HR. FOH.

As with anything you don't like, work to change it. Organize.

Unlike typing on the computer, it is usually a slow, painful and often seemingly impossible task.

We need someone tough on crime, which we don’t have with a progressive city council. Their solution is feel good measures of little efficacy like violence interruptors. Then we have Racine who wants to let teens who commit violent atrocities out of jail early or to not incarcerate at all. Then we have glib progressives on here who don’t recognize that the crime situation is degrading the quality of city life. It basically took from 1999 to present for the positive changes of gentrification and development to be reflected in the overall city. Now we risk sliding backwards because of weakness and wokeness. I’m sure this post will be erased as it doesn’t align with the agenda on this forum, but it needs to be said. Also, I’m not here for a moral discussion of gentrification or displacement, as I don’t believe that either are bad for the city.

[Anonymous]

NOBODY in DC wants to give up home rule.

Home rule is nothing but a bullshit talking point devised by right wingers in the hinterlands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NOBODY in DC wants to give up home rule.

Home rule is nothing but a bullshit talking point devised by right wingers in the hinterlands.

^GIVING UP Home Rule is a bullshit right wing talking point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NOBODY in DC wants to give up home rule.

Home rule is nothing but a bullshit talking point devised by right wingers in the hinterlands.

^GIVING UP Home Rule is a bullshit right wing talking point.

And it's a particularly ironic one given the right wing hates federal control. They just don't like the idea of DC moving in the direction of statehood because more people with representation means GOP control is weakened.