Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sign outside the Wilson Building:

Why does our local government so de-emphasize ”Washington” (the name of our Nation’s Capital recognized around the world) and so emphasize “DC”? See the logo on the sign. Is the name of Washington out of favor, somehow not p.c. ?

The logo is “We Are Washington DC.” DC stands out because it’s shorter.

Yes. This is the fight of our lives, for the future of our country.

As Max Boot said, the only way to fix the country is to destroy the Republican Party. The stakes are sky high.

And right now, the rightwing billionaires’ propaganda machine is winning. The actions you take today matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sign outside the Wilson Building:

Why does our local government so de-emphasize ”Washington” (the name of our Nation’s Capital recognized around the world) and so emphasize “DC”? See the logo on the sign. Is the name of Washington out of favor, somehow not p.c. ?

Yes. Washington is out of favor. Frank Luntz, Republican propagandist, poisoned it intentionally.



https://www.businessinsider.com/political-language-rhetoric-framing-messaging-lakoff-luntz-2017-8

The idea was that Americans used to have good feelings about “government”. So he told conservatives to use “Washington “ instead.

Try showing your DC drivers license to someone in a red state. Often as not you’ll get a sneer. Fox and Limbaugh insult Washington pretty much daily.

If you haven’t noticed yet, this is a fight for the soul of our country.
If the pitchforks come, they’re coming for us. Unless we stop the GOP propaganda machine first.

The statehood campaign is pathetic. Washington DC will never become a state.

Anonymous wrote:Sign outside the Wilson Building:

Why does our local government so de-emphasize ”Washington” (the name of our Nation’s Capital recognized around the world) and so emphasize “DC”? See the logo on the sign. Is the name of Washington out of favor, somehow not p.c. ?

Sign outside the Wilson Building:

Anonymous wrote:Rightwingers are deathly afraid of DC statehood - as it will break their anti-majoritarian hold on the Senate. No longer will Wyoming, North Dakota, Kentucky, and Idaho block climate change legislation and suppress the black vote.

There is little that makes rightwingers desperately shout "never going to happen" to try to sow despair than DC statehood.

Two votes wouldn't necessarily make a change in the Senate majority. And it's funny that you like the idea of giving the 700,000 people who live in DC two senate seats but call those states "anti-majoritarian." I would like to remind you that the Senate failed to pass the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill when the Senate Democrats possessed a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority and Obama was President. It was passed by the House and sent to the Senate the same year they did Obamacare. The moderate Senate Ds said no way.

Anonymous wrote:I thought Gingrich suggested making DC a tax haven from paying federal taxes since we have no representation but dc folks weren’t interested. I would prefer to be a tax haven.

The problem with that is that any wealthy person from anywhere in the US who mainly got their income from investments could establish a DC address - effectively elmininating federal income taxes on such people. A lot of people who were not local DC folks had a problem with that, as I recall.

I thought Gingrich suggested making DC a tax haven from paying federal taxes since we have no representation but dc folks weren’t interested. I would prefer to be a tax haven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it ever even approaches reality retrocession will take place before independent statehood. Washington, MD will become a thing.

Zero chance DC will stand for that. DC residents want representation of our own. DC residents want independent statehood and DC leaders want independent statehood.

Maryland does not want it either. Its only suggested by people who do not want two more Dem Senators, afaict.

Read the links above. Retrocession is clearly against the wishes of the founders.

All the founders wanted was for the Federal District to be independent of any state, and no larger than ten miles square. There was no minimum size contemplated. The federal government has evolved so that the fear of one state having undue influence is no longer a factor.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the Constitution pretty clear about DC supposedly not being a "political" town - which it would be if it achieved statehood. I do not think it does the country good to have the nation's capital a state with powerful elected officials who'd be so staunchly left wing liberals (no state in the country comes anywhere close to DC's 90+% Democratic voting majority). Talk about special interests politicians...... rather ironic given some of the comments on here.

Keep DC politically neutral. It works just fine and dandy that way. And if you're so upset about not having congressmen or senators, just move a few miles to Maryland or Virginia. No one is holding a gun to your head.

The Constitution says nothing of the kind, in fact it says very little about the Federal District other than its size cannot exceed 10 miles square.

What the founders wanted was for the federal seat to be independent of any state control. Read about the Philadelphia Mutiny of 1783 to learn why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it ever even approaches reality retrocession will take place before independent statehood. Washington, MD will become a thing.

Zero chance DC will stand for that. DC residents want representation of our own. DC residents want independent statehood and DC leaders want independent statehood.

Maryland does not want it either. Its only suggested by people who do not want two more Dem Senators, afaict.

Read the links above. Retrocession is clearly against the wishes of the founders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it ever even approaches reality retrocession will take place before independent statehood. Washington, MD will become a thing.

Zero chance DC will stand for that. DC residents want representation of our own. DC residents want independent statehood and DC leaders want independent statehood.

Maryland does not want it either. Its only suggested by people who do not want two more Dem Senators, afaict.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the Constitution pretty clear about DC supposedly not being a "political" town - which it would be if it achieved statehood. I do not think it does the country good to have the nation's capital a state with powerful elected officials who'd be so staunchly left wing liberals (no state in the country comes anywhere close to DC's 90+% Democratic voting majority). Talk about special interests politicians...... rather ironic given some of the comments on here.

Keep DC politically neutral. It works just fine and dandy that way. And if you're so upset about not having congressmen or senators, just move a few miles to Maryland or Virginia. No one is holding a gun to your head.

The federal govt buildings would remain part of a federal district, seperate from the new state. The White House, the Supreme Court, the Capitol building and congressional office buildings, would all remain in the Federal District, as would several cabinet departs along the Mall.

A few departments (DHS, I suppose, for example) would end up in the State of New Columbia - just as the Department of Defense is in Virginia.

Of course today the federal office buildings, the WH, etc in the District of Columbia, under local elected officials. While congress does sometimes interfere in local law, I can't think of any recent case where they did so in ways that actually mattered to federal govt operations.

I'm pretty sure Gingrich never offered DC statehood. I remember all the talk during the mid-late 1990s. The closest he came to that offer was suggesting - not offering, but suggesting - that DC be returned to Maryland. There's no way any Republican leader would have offered something that would be a surefire guarantee of two more permanent Democratic senators in perpetuity.