US House GOP bans DC Mayor from House Floor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

[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 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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

[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 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.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

Which special Federal districts and territories pay Federal income tax?

[Anonymous]

DC should simply become part of MD.

Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

She's not a Governor

[Anonymous]

It’s so funny that no one cares about this except Bowser and some anonymous crank.