Well, it’s happening - the House just gave control of RFK field to DC

[Anonymous]

This is not passing the senate. Talk to Steve daines

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Montana is a state with a lot of Federal lands that many people would probably love to be transferred to state government control so they could give away to private entities who want to profit off of it.

I know that it’s hard to understand, but DC is not the center of the universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Montana is a state with a lot of Federal lands that many people would probably love to be transferred to state government control so they could give away to private entities who want to profit off of it.

I know that it’s hard to understand, but DC is not the center of the universe.

It's not the center of the universe. That's EXACTLY the point. That's why this relatively tiny piece of land that doesn't need to be owned by the federal government will continue to exist in a sad, blighted condition. The local US citizens who live near it have no actual ability - via power of an elected representative who carries a vote in federal decisions - to have anything done about it. Unlike the citizens of Montana.

It's very clear you don't care, we get that. But thanks for the shoulder shrugging response from someone who doesn't care about that land, and presumably doesn't live anywhere near it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the Federal government put this land up for auction like it does for surplus property. Would that be fair enough for you?

Are you trying to be snarky?

The idea of the federal government selling the RFK land was actually proposed and discussed in a prior house committee meeting some years ago, and I do believe it was a republican representative from some flyover state who proposed it. So then DC actually put forth a bill to purchase it and it never went anywhere.

Problem is, literally cannot get any bill to get to any final vote in both houses because we do not have a representative who has a vote, which gives negotiating power for smaller issues that the majority of the US doesn't care about.

Do I look like a Republican from a fly over state? If you read the article, it wouldn’t matter anyway if DC had a vote because this type of specific legislation requires unanimous consent.

It would matter, because if DC reps had votes, then DC reps could use RFK as leverage when people try to garner their vote on completely unrelated issues. That's how the political tit for tat works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the Federal government put this land up for auction like it does for surplus property. Would that be fair enough for you?

Are you trying to be snarky?

The idea of the federal government selling the RFK land was actually proposed and discussed in a prior house committee meeting some years ago, and I do believe it was a republican representative from some flyover state who proposed it. So then DC actually put forth a bill to purchase it and it never went anywhere.

Problem is, literally cannot get any bill to get to any final vote in both houses because we do not have a representative who has a vote, which gives negotiating power for smaller issues that the majority of the US doesn't care about.

Do I look like a Republican from a fly over state? If you read the article, it wouldn’t matter anyway if DC had a vote because this type of specific legislation requires unanimous consent.

It would matter, because if DC reps had votes, then DC reps could use RFK as leverage when people try to garner their vote on completely unrelated issues. That's how the political tit for tat works.

You misunderstand what leverage is and also don’t understand how the Senate works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the Federal government put this land up for auction like it does for surplus property. Would that be fair enough for you?

Are you trying to be snarky?

The idea of the federal government selling the RFK land was actually proposed and discussed in a prior house committee meeting some years ago, and I do believe it was a republican representative from some flyover state who proposed it. So then DC actually put forth a bill to purchase it and it never went anywhere.

Problem is, literally cannot get any bill to get to any final vote in both houses because we do not have a representative who has a vote, which gives negotiating power for smaller issues that the majority of the US doesn't care about.

Do I look like a Republican from a fly over state? If you read the article, it wouldn’t matter anyway if DC had a vote because this type of specific legislation requires unanimous consent.

It would matter, because if DC reps had votes, then DC reps could use RFK as leverage when people try to garner their vote on completely unrelated issues. That's how the political tit for tat works.

You misunderstand what leverage is and also don’t understand how the Senate works.

Great. Tell me your solutions for actually getting something to happen at this site. If you're some dude in NW or Bethesda without any interest in the ongoing blight of the RFK site, why are you even posting here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I’m here representing a voice that is not being listened to, and that is the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and the Wetzel family,” Daines said, according to the Washington Post. “I serve them. … I’m here representing my constituents.”

Problem is he actually gets a vote to represent his constituents, who will probably never set foot on RFK soil

But the people who live adjacent to the stadium don't get to have a senator who has a vote. We have nobody to serve us or represent us in any meaningful way- because shadow representatives can't.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the Federal government put this land up for auction like it does for surplus property. Would that be fair enough for you?

Are you trying to be snarky?

The idea of the federal government selling the RFK land was actually proposed and discussed in a prior house committee meeting some years ago, and I do believe it was a republican representative from some flyover state who proposed it. So then DC actually put forth a bill to purchase it and it never went anywhere.

Problem is, literally cannot get any bill to get to any final vote in both houses because we do not have a representative who has a vote, which gives negotiating power for smaller issues that the majority of the US doesn't care about.

Do I look like a Republican from a fly over state? If you read the article, it wouldn’t matter anyway if DC had a vote because this type of specific legislation requires unanimous consent.

It would matter, because if DC reps had votes, then DC reps could use RFK as leverage when people try to garner their vote on completely unrelated issues. That's how the political tit for tat works.

You misunderstand what leverage is and also don’t understand how the Senate works.

We pretending log rolling doesn't happen in the Senate? ok.