Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is such a bullshit argument. Nobody is forced to live in DC, and you can move to an area where you can vote by going maybe a couple miles down the road. The idea that the people who voluntarily live here (with full knowledge of the voting issue) are being done some grave injustice is just laughable.

The grave injustice is that the people who live here without voting rights are paying more federal income taxes on a per capita basis than every jurisdiction in the US except Connecticut. Either give me two senators (like Wyoming and Vermont---both of whom with fewer people than the District) or else abolish federal income tax for DC residents.

So, it’s all about the dollars then?

DP. I would rather have representation than no federal income tax, but even you, a craven partisan engaging in bad faith, must see that we need to have one or the other.

Anonymous wrote:Statehood for DC is nothing but a partisan power grab. Two Senators and one Representative means three more votes in Congress for the Democrats. Having Maryland annex all of the territory surrounding the National Mall, Foggy Bottom and the Federal Triangle would create two new Congressional districts, and solve the representation issue. The federal capital of the United States was never meant to be a state.

^
|

Republican-aligned anti-DC ideologue.
No one says stuff like this unless they work at Heritage or AEI or have ties to an inner-circle rightwing organization.

So many haters here.

Nadeau is an effective councilmember. I watched her listen to a bunch of students on Wash Met and change her stance and then go advocate for them. And she’s worked to expand the social safety net and make sure poor people in DC have health coverage.

Love how this thread is exposed as filled with anti-DC ideologues by all the anti-statehood posts. Who’s the ideologues pushing national issues again? Sounds like the posters here are.

Nadeau is a councilmember who listens and will get even more done now that the new council has a strong majority.

My hot take is that guys like Graham and Evans were laughably corrupt, but that corruption ultimately led them to a transactional politics that ended up always ensuring that there was a little something for everyone. The current crop of local politicians don’t seem to even have a sensibility that they represent their constituencies or communities. Instead they now represent identities and ideologies that are distant from the daily lives of ordinary people and frequently inappropriate for our contexts.

Anonymous wrote:

This is such a bullshit argument. Nobody is forced to live in DC, and you can move to an area where you can vote by going maybe a couple miles down the road. The idea that the people who voluntarily live here (with full knowledge of the voting issue) are being done some grave injustice is just laughable.

The grave injustice is that the people who live here without voting rights are paying more federal income taxes on a per capita basis than every jurisdiction in the US except Connecticut. Either give me two senators (like Wyoming and Vermont---both of whom with fewer people than the District) or else abolish federal income tax for DC residents.

So, it’s all about the dollars then?

This is such a bullshit argument. Nobody is forced to live in DC, and you can move to an area where you can vote by going maybe a couple miles down the road. The idea that the people who voluntarily live here (with full knowledge of the voting issue) are being done some grave injustice is just laughable.

The grave injustice is that the people who live here without voting rights are paying more federal income taxes on a per capita basis than every jurisdiction in the US except Connecticut. Either give me two senators (like Wyoming and Vermont---both of whom with fewer people than the District) or else abolish federal income tax for DC residents.

“I voted for budgets that increase funding for the Metropolitan Police Department, move forward with the officer body camera rollout, and add new officers.”

Nadeau in 2019

Defund the police.

Nadeau in 2020.

She has three positions on every issue.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. I forgot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be a big player once statehood becomes reality

I was very much in favor of Statehood until the city council became dominated by immoderates.

I never understand how people can look at DC city government and think “yeah, let’s give these people more power.”

Sure, better to leave 700,000 Americans disenfranchised. You morons.

This is such a bullshit argument. Nobody is forced to live in DC, and you can move to an area where you can vote by going maybe a couple miles down the road. The idea that the people who voluntarily live here (with full knowledge of the voting issue) are being done some grave injustice is just laughable.

Statehood for DC is nothing but a partisan power grab. Two Senators and one Representative means three more votes in Congress for the Democrats. Having Maryland annex all of the territory surrounding the National Mall, Foggy Bottom and the Federal Triangle would create two new Congressional districts, and solve the representation issue. The federal capital of the United States was never meant to be a state.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be a big player once statehood becomes reality

I was very much in favor of Statehood until the city council became dominated by immoderates.

I never understand how people can look at DC city government and think “yeah, let’s give these people more power.”

Sure, better to leave 700,000 Americans disenfranchised. You morons.

But if they're determined to be idiots susceptible to flavor-of-the-month ideologies? I don't know. I'm the poster who said I used to believe statehood was imperative and oversight was insulting. I don't know that the Federal gov't is better equipped to manage us without acting according to destructive ideological policies, but we're doing very badly on that front ourselves in DC.

You can just say that you only believe in democracy if people are kind of close to you politically.

It's a gross position, but at least you'd be honest about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be a big player once statehood becomes reality

I was very much in favor of Statehood until the city council became dominated by immoderates.

I never understand how people can look at DC city government and think “yeah, let’s give these people more power.”

Sure, better to leave 700,000 Americans disenfranchised. You morons.

But if they're determined to be idiots susceptible to flavor-of-the-month ideologies? I don't know. I'm the poster who said I used to believe statehood was imperative and oversight was insulting. I don't know that the Federal gov't is better equipped to manage us without acting according to destructive ideological policies, but we're doing very badly on that front ourselves in DC.

If that's the criteria for statehood, when are we revoking Texas' and Florida's?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be a big player once statehood becomes reality

I was very much in favor of Statehood until the city council became dominated by immoderates.

I never understand how people can look at DC city government and think “yeah, let’s give these people more power.”

Sure, better to leave 700,000 Americans disenfranchised. You morons.

But if they're determined to be idiots susceptible to flavor-of-the-month ideologies? I don't know. I'm the poster who said I used to believe statehood was imperative and oversight was insulting. I don't know that the Federal gov't is better equipped to manage us without acting according to destructive ideological policies, but we're doing very badly on that front ourselves in DC.

Anonymous wrote:I heard that the new leader of GGW, Chelsea Allinger, was going to announce?

Hopefully, not. They often back candidates who favor policies that tend to either promote overpopulation or the socio-economically privileged. For instance, they backed a former ANC, who is also angling to be on the council in the future, who favors many of these same policy perspectives. Oh yes, the neighborhood has "new" development, but it favors the privileged areas and not the areas that need it the most. For example, when we have neighbors who are experiencing housing insecurity, etc. on Benning Road we shouldn't be targeting development on other blocks that appears to disproportionately favor privileged interests. Not surprising our former ANC sits on the "non-profit" Board that makes such decisions and, as we all know, such platforms are helpful for those interested in financing their runs for city council. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens with this election.

Do you think she can easily find a different job that pays more than being on the council?

No, right?

So she'll run for re-election. People don't just give up money and power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be a big player once statehood becomes reality

I was very much in favor of Statehood until the city council became dominated by immoderates.

I never understand how people can look at DC city government and think “yeah, let’s give these people more power.”

Sure, better to leave 700,000 Americans disenfranchised. You morons.