Manchin on DC statehood

[Anonymous]

Those arguing that (most of) DC should be retroceded to MD are necessarily conceding that the Constitution does *not* require the “seat of government” to be either its current size or physically autonomous from a single state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC resident here. I am sick and tired of not having my own Senators and Reps. It sucks. And DC gets screwed because of it.

Also, and not totally related, the Republican party has slid into fascism and wants to turn the US into Chile or Franco's Spain: a christo-fascist country, run by a handful of billionaires with free rein to pollute our water, leave our kids uneducated, expel the immigrants that are the lifeblood of America, and run our economy into the toilet. They will do this by continuing to suppress votes, buying politicians with billionaires' money, and taking advantage of the anti-democratic structure of the Senate and Electoral College.

The only way to fix this, and save America and what it stands for, is to fix the Senate. Making DC a state is one step down that road.

So, for both reasons -- giving representation to American citizens, and fixing America – I support making DC a state.

- real DC resident

If only you had the foresight to consider that before living there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not usually a fan of drinking liberal tears but man this thread is delicious.

I'm glad you find our continued status as serfs enjoyable. Do you also like frying ants with a magnifying glass or are you more of a pulling wings off of bugs kind of person?

Oh come on. You’re crying over milk split hundreds of years ago. It’s pretty stupid.

Every single person who lives in DC and doesn’t like it can hop over the border to MD and get busy voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC resident here. I am sick and tired of not having my own Senators and Reps. It sucks. And DC gets screwed because of it.

Also, and not totally related, the Republican party has slid into fascism and wants to turn the US into Chile or Franco's Spain: a christo-fascist country, run by a handful of billionaires with free rein to pollute our water, leave our kids uneducated, expel the immigrants that are the lifeblood of America, and run our economy into the toilet. They will do this by continuing to suppress votes, buying politicians with billionaires' money, and taking advantage of the anti-democratic structure of the Senate and Electoral College.

The only way to fix this, and save America and what it stands for, is to fix the Senate. Making DC a state is one step down that road.

So, for both reasons -- giving representation to American citizens, and fixing America – I support making DC a state.

- real DC resident

If only you had the foresight to consider that before living there.

Do try to grasp that we are aware that we are arguing for a change in the status quo. No one is disputing what the current arrangement is. If you think the status quo should be preserved, feel free to present an actual argument for your position.

[Anonymous]

Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

If he was from Alabama or the Dakotas maybe. But not West Virginia. They're local. They know us and break bread with us. This is much worse than Sinema or Tester saying no. It's a giant F U to the region they are a part of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Manchin was asked if he was worried he’d be primaried or something to that effect. He said that it would be the best thing ever for him because it would guarantee his reelection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those arguing that (most of) DC should be retroceded to MD are necessarily conceding that the Constitution does *not* require the “seat of government” to be either its current size or physically autonomous from a single state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those arguing that (most of) DC should be retroceded to MD are necessarily conceding that the Constitution does *not* require the “seat of government” to be either its current size or physically autonomous from a single state.

Steve, can you explain to us how Alexandria and Arlington were able to retrocede to Virginia if retrocession to MD would be unconstitutional?

[Anonymous]

It's not unconstitutional. That is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While we're at it, California is way too large. It needs to be divided in two.

Same for Texas.

Florida has two different time zones. Definitely need to split that up, too. That’ll be two more likely Republican senators.

Same goes for the eastern parts of Oregon and Washington, which are so different from the coastal parts of the state that they could be on different planets. So that’s four more Republican senators.

Go ahead, dims. Play the “create a state to get two more senators” game. And then we’ll show you how the game gets won.

It is unconstotutional to do that.

But that isn't what is would be happening with DC.

The point is, many states were formed specifically to game the Senate. With urban migration, the population disparaties are forcing a tyranny of the minority, which is untenable.

I’ve read your post like 7 times, and I STILL can’t figure out WTH you’re talking about.

And the word is “unconstitutional”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those arguing that (most of) DC should be retroceded to MD are necessarily conceding that the Constitution does *not* require the “seat of government” to be either its current size or physically autonomous from a single state.

You're giving conservatives too much credit for having self-consistent logic.

They just argue whatever lie is politically convenient for whatever argument they are in. If you catch them in a lie, they'll just move to another one.



It's been very amusing to watch Heritage just absolutely embarrass itself over the past few years. Now the whole country, not just DC, knows that rightwingers are low-level hacks. Did you see the poor kid Heritage hired a few years ago go on to testify to Congress and talk about lawn signs?
Such an embarassment for what conservatives think of as the pinnacle of their "intellectual" jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The point is, many states were formed specifically to game the Senate. With urban migration, the population disparaties are forcing a tyranny of the minority, which is untenable.

I’ve read your post like 7 times, and I STILL can’t figure out WTH you’re talking about.


That post is a summary of this historian's article. Sorry you weren't familiar with it, but perhaps read it now?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/

In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming—the largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later.

I mean, back then, the Republicans were the anti-racist party (they switched on race, welcoming Southern racists into their party, in 1964 w/ the passage of the Civil Rights Act, though it took a few decades for all the Dixecrats to join the GOP.) But it was still the Republicans who admitted 6 states in 1889-90 to pack the Senate and Electoral College.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While we're at it, California is way too large. It needs to be divided in two.

Same for Texas.

Florida has two different time zones. Definitely need to split that up, too. That’ll be two more likely Republican senators.

Same goes for the eastern parts of Oregon and Washington, which are so different from the coastal parts of the state that they could be on different planets. So that’s four more Republican senators.

Go ahead, dims. Play the “create a state to get two more senators” game. And then we’ll show you how the game gets won.

It is unconstotutional to do that.

But that isn't what is would be happening with DC.

The point is, many states were formed specifically to game the Senate. With urban migration, the population disparaties are forcing a tyranny of the minority, which is untenable.

I’ve read your post like 7 times, and I STILL can’t figure out WTH you’re talking about.

And the word is “unconstitutional”.

I wouldn't emphasize this. It sure makes you look stupid if you don't understand what urban migration has done to representation in the Senate. https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22215728/senate-anti-democratic-one-number-raphael-warnock-jon-ossoff-georgia-runoffs?fbclid=IwAR2TOqBTyDrzpd_SnaqoglcMsuTs2LRagbaq_WrUt_DtyZFLitJR_D9ES20