Are there any legitimate reasons why someone would oppose DC statehood?

[Anonymous]

Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

[Anonymous]

Racism.

Parking spots. (seriously, that was an issue raised today)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

Oh my.

History 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

Oh my.

History 101.

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

[Anonymous]

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

That seems like a good reason to me. I like the idea of the nation's capital being located in a neutral territory. Why should it be a state? Do we need another state? If we really want to make it a state, wouldn't it make the most sense just to annex it back to Maryland, which donated the land in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Way too much bureaucracy added on top.

D.C. is the size of a small town. What's going to happen when its not just the city mayor/dc council, the federal government, the white house, and congress meddling?

Now we need a Governor, an extra Senator, and a state house of representatives?

This is BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

That seems like a good reason to me. I like the idea of the nation's capital being located in a neutral territory. Why should it be a state? Do we need another state? If we really want to make it a state, wouldn't it make the most sense just to annex it back to Maryland, which donated the land in the first place?

"It" is 700,000 people. What are the reasons for not allowing these people to be represented in Congress? Why should they not have a say in things like defense or trade policy or consumer protections?

At this point, I would be okay giving it back to Maryland, frankly. I am simply thinking of representation.

[Anonymous]

Not economically viable.

Can you give me one could reason why DC SHOULD be a state, other than liking the way DC residents might vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not economically viable.

Can you give me one could reason why DC SHOULD be a state, other than liking the way DC residents might vote?

Democracy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not economically viable.

Can you give me one could reason why DC SHOULD be a state, other than liking the way DC residents might vote?

Because they have no representation in Congress. No voice. Isn't that good enough?

[Anonymous]

DC will be blue, Conservatives don't want to give them the federal representation.

[Anonymous]

Because they have no representation in Congress. No voice. Isn't that good enough?

It's not as if this is a secret. They are welcome to move to an existing state if they want Congressional representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have no representation in Congress. No voice. Isn't that good enough?

It's not as if this is a secret. They are welcome to move to an existing state if they want Congressional representation.

I mean you could say the same thing about Missouri, to be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not economically viable.

Can you give me one could reason why DC SHOULD be a state, other than liking the way DC residents might vote?

For that matter, I can't think of one reason why Wyoming should be a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not economically viable.

Can you give me one could reason why DC SHOULD be a state, other than liking the way DC residents might vote?

I remember hearing somewhere that taxation without representation is tyranny?