Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just call it The Douglass Commonwealth.

So everyone will just call it “Douglass”? Because no one says I’m going to the “Commonwealth of Virginia” or “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations”.

Anonymous wrote:Just call it The Douglass Commonwealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

NP but it is a stupid name. It’s too long and there is already a Washington state. State of Washington would get confusing. They just need a new name.

Washington, (State of Columbia) would work. They could even keep the DC postal code (like airport codes, they don't have to match anything), or change the postal code abbreviation to WC.

If they want to be a state then they should grow up and be a state and take the name of the city out of the name.

"State of Columbia" if fine. They should just go with that and call it a day.

Washington, SC is then the city of Washington in the State of Columbia.

If they cannot be adult enough about the name to take it sufficiently seriously, then why should anyone else take statehood seriously?

Columbia is a non-starter. We will not give further honor to a greedy racist who brought nothing but death and destruction to the New World

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

NP but it is a stupid name. It’s too long and there is already a Washington state. State of Washington would get confusing. They just need a new name.

Washington, (State of Columbia) would work. They could even keep the DC postal code (like airport codes, they don't have to match anything), or change the postal code abbreviation to WC.

If they want to be a state then they should grow up and be a state and take the name of the city out of the name.

"State of Columbia" if fine. They should just go with that and call it a day.

Washington, SC is then the city of Washington in the State of Columbia.

If they cannot be adult enough about the name to take it sufficiently seriously, then why should anyone else take statehood seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC Mayor Muriel Bowser is testifying again today on Capitol Hill in favor of statehood for the District. Meanwhile, a Post article from earlier this month is getting renewed attention, on the additional costs to DC taxpayers of statehood - including for DC to assume the costs of operating the criminal justice system and the courts, plus significant additional pension liabilities and Medicaid costs. This brings the cost, some of it recurring, to $2 billion just for starters. I support DC full voting rights in Congress, but the financial impact of statehood hasn't been clearly thought out. It's a lot of money for the District, with lots of acute needs, to spend on DC politicians' vanity project.

Bowser's spokespersons said that DC has plenty of revenue to absorb these costs, but then said that it may be necessary to defer certain planned spending, such as on affordable housing and school renovations, to pay for statehood.

Also concerning was this: "Leaders of a new state would be able to make different choices about criminal justice, implementing changes that could cut costs"

So reassuring, when violent crime is spiking across the District, including last week's drive by shooting at an elementary school site in Upper NW in which two people were injured by gunfire. Someone should ask Bowser how her team can be so cavalier about criminal justice spending, when young criminals can shoot up a school with automatic weapons, just a half-mile form where the Vice President resides. And why MPD policy prohibits hot pursuit of fleeing shooter suspects, unless a federal agency takes the lead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/06/04/dc-statehood-cost/

The idea of statehood, and voting rights, being a vanity project...

Why was D.C. not conceived as a state in the first place?

Centuries have gone by and no one thought of changing it to a state before?

Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC Mayor Muriel Bowser is testifying again today on Capitol Hill in favor of statehood for the District. Meanwhile, a Post article from earlier this month is getting renewed attention, on the additional costs to DC taxpayers of statehood - including for DC to assume the costs of operating the criminal justice system and the courts, plus significant additional pension liabilities and Medicaid costs. This brings the cost, some of it recurring, to $2 billion just for starters. I support DC full voting rights in Congress, but the financial impact of statehood hasn't been clearly thought out. It's a lot of money for the District, with lots of acute needs, to spend on DC politicians' vanity project.

Bowser's spokespersons said that DC has plenty of revenue to absorb these costs, but then said that it may be necessary to defer certain planned spending, such as on affordable housing and school renovations, to pay for statehood.

Also concerning was this: "Leaders of a new state would be able to make different choices about criminal justice, implementing changes that could cut costs"

So reassuring, when violent crime is spiking across the District, including last week's drive by shooting at an elementary school site in Upper NW in which two people were injured by gunfire. Someone should ask Bowser how her team can be so cavalier about criminal justice spending, when young criminals can shoot up a school with automatic weapons, just a half-mile form where the Vice President resides. And why MPD policy prohibits hot pursuit of fleeing shooter suspects, unless a federal agency takes the lead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/06/04/dc-statehood-cost/

The idea of statehood, and voting rights, being a vanity project...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

NP but it is a stupid name. It’s too long and there is already a Washington state. State of Washington would get confusing. They just need a new name.

Washington, (State of Columbia) would work. They could even keep the DC postal code (like airport codes, they don't have to match anything), or change the postal code abbreviation to WC.

Anonymous wrote:
If they want to be a state then they should grow up and be a state and take the name of the city out of the name.

"State of Columbia" if fine. They should just go with that and call it a day.

Washington, SC is then the city of Washington in the State of Columbia.

If they cannot be adult enough about the name to take it sufficiently seriously, then why should anyone else take statehood seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

NP but it is a stupid name. It’s too long and there is already a Washington state. State of Washington would get confusing. They just need a new name.

Washington, (State of Columbia) would work. They could even keep the DC postal code (like airport codes, they don't have to match anything), or change the postal code abbreviation to WC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

NP but it is a stupid name. It’s too long and there is already a Washington state. State of Washington would get confusing. They just need a new name.