Reply to Republicans are revving up for a D.C. smackdown

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Republicans are revving up for a D.C. smackdown"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”[/quote]

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.[/quote]

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier. [/quote]

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.[/quote]

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses. [/quote]

I didn't vote for Mendo, either, and I've never lived in Allen's ward, so I've never voted for or against him. I'm not an activist, I just believe in democracy.

You're still reaching for the most extreme possible solution rather than working to address your complaints by, say, persuading some of the remaining 78 percent of residents to vote. Wouldn't it be better to elect people who are representative of MORE of the city, rather than having people be appointed who represent 0 percent of its residents?[/quote]

[b]There's nothing extreme in returning to a tried and true solution, one that is historically and Constitutionally appropriate.[/b]

What is extreme is insisting on Home Rule when its obviously not working. You can churn candidates all you like, but DC is structurally incapable of producing quality leaders. We can go into why in more detail, but in short DC is small city in the heart of a larger metro, its a one-party town, and its population is either highly transient or mired in multi-generational poverty. This makes DC the perfect place for someone to blow into town with a receipt from a fancy college, demand changes and promptly move away as soon as they have to experience the consequences of their demands.

I would be a much bigger supporter of Home Rule if you had to live here another 20 years and keep your kids in the public school system for the duration of that time as a condition to vote. If people had skin in the game, they might actually be forced to make good decisions.

But an appointed Mayor would be easier to achieve. [/quote]

Ha ha. Yeah, no, that's extreme. "I, a resident of DC, think the voters of Arkansas and Georgia and Indiana should get to make the decisions about my garbage pick-up and recycling!" is extreme.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics