Anonymous wrote:I am a DC resident. I have worked in congress for years (obviously not a congress person) This is a non issue for Congress. The US Congress is not interested in discussing the idea of DC Statehood or doing anything perceived to give DC more State rights.

I know that may not sound fair to a lot of us but look at our last several times we have had a Dem President, Dem Congress and Dem Senate. The idea just has nobody interested.

At this point in my personal life, I would almost be happier exploring other solutions to at least have representation. I have observed DCUM long enough to know that those ideas are almost seen as blasphemous so I will not bring them up again.

Anonymous wrote:Why should the DC Mayor have house floor privileges? What was the rationale for granting them in the first place and when did that happen?

Anonymous wrote:The House also tries to meddle in the individual governance of DC more than any other city in the country, so it is kind of messed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

This is correct. It is also correct that when Democrats did it 2 years ago, it was also virtue signaling. It is also a clear political statement from Republicans that they will not be treating DC as equivalent to a state like Democrats do or entertain any potential statehood considerations. That’s just politics.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

Which special Federal districts and territories pay Federal income tax?

You think people in DC don’t pay federal income tax?

You are incapable of reading comprehension. Can you identify which do and which don’t? It’s a very simple question and an easy answer.

DP... DC residents pay federal income taxes. But other territories do not.

Didn't you ever hear about the reasons for the American revolution? Taxation without representation. We pay federal taxes, we deserve federal representation. Either that or exempt us from taxes like the other territories that don't have representation. Take your pick. But taxation without representation is undeniably un-American.

Learn some history.

Or support the dissolution of the district and return the land to MD.

Your pick.

Not relevant. You take your pick. Taxation OR representation. But not both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

This is correct. It is also correct that when Democrats did it 2 years ago, it was also virtue signaling. It is also a clear political statement from Republicans that they will not be treating DC as equivalent to a state like Democrats do or entertain any potential statehood considerations. That’s just politics.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

Which special Federal districts and territories pay Federal income tax?

You think people in DC don’t pay federal income tax?

You are incapable of reading comprehension. Can you identify which do and which don’t? It’s a very simple question and an easy answer.

DP... DC residents pay federal income taxes. But other territories do not.

Didn't you ever hear about the reasons for the American revolution? Taxation without representation. We pay federal taxes, we deserve federal representation. Either that or exempt us from taxes like the other territories that don't have representation. Take your pick. But taxation without representation is undeniably un-American.

Learn some history.

Or support the dissolution of the district and return the land to MD.

Your pick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

This is correct. It is also correct that when Democrats did it 2 years ago, it was also virtue signaling. It is also a clear political statement from Republicans that they will not be treating DC as equivalent to a state like Democrats do or entertain any potential statehood considerations. That’s just politics.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

Which special Federal districts and territories pay Federal income tax?

You think people in DC don’t pay federal income tax?

You are incapable of reading comprehension. Can you identify which do and which don’t? It’s a very simple question and an easy answer.

DP... DC residents pay federal income taxes. But other territories do not.

Didn't you ever hear about the reasons for the American revolution? Taxation without representation. We pay federal taxes, we deserve federal representation. Either that or exempt us from taxes like the other territories that don't have representation. Take your pick. But taxation without representation is undeniably un-American.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

This is correct. It is also correct that when Democrats did it 2 years ago, it was also virtue signaling. It is also a clear political statement from Republicans that they will not be treating DC as equivalent to a state like Democrats do or entertain any potential statehood considerations. That’s just politics.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

Which special Federal districts and territories pay Federal income tax?

You think people in DC don’t pay federal income tax?

You are incapable of reading comprehension. Can you identify which do and which don’t? It’s a very simple question and an easy answer.

DP... DC residents pay federal income taxes. But other territories do not.

Didn't you ever hear about the reasons for the American revolution? Taxation without representation. We pay federal taxes, we deserve federal representation. Either that or exempt us from taxes like the other territories that don't have representation. Take your pick. But taxation without representation is undeniably un-American.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

This is correct. It is also correct that when Democrats did it 2 years ago, it was also virtue signaling. It is also a clear political statement from Republicans that they will not be treating DC as equivalent to a state like Democrats do or entertain any potential statehood considerations. That’s just politics.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

Which special Federal districts and territories pay Federal income tax?

You think people in DC don’t pay federal income tax?

You are incapable of reading comprehension. Can you identify which do and which don’t? It’s a very simple question and an easy answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.

Republicans went out of their way to change this rule. Please provide a justification for the rule that doesn’t amount to wanting to stick it to the libs. Something that will give me any reason to believe Republicans are capable of doing something rational, as opposed to only things that are petty and malicious.

And Democrats went out of their way to create this new rule 2 years ago. So what?

They did it to give a voice to Americans who live in territories that do not have representation in Congress, and so that the mayor of DC could address the people with ultimate control over they city. Those were valid, substantive, constructive reasons for Democrats to change the rule. Why do Republicans want to silence all of those people? What is the substantive and constructive reason for that?

How do floor privileges for the mayor give DC a voice in Congress? DC’s voice in Congress is DC’s representative named Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not allowing the mayor of DC floor privileges doesn’t silence anyone, spare the histrionics. Bowser herself said that it didn’t make a difference.

*sigh* Did you actually misunderstand my post or are you posting in bad faith? I’d like to believe the former, but I suspect it’s the latter, especially since you have once again deflected instead of answering the question.

The “voice”part was about territories, not DC. You know the US has territories, right?

The mayor part was about allowing the mayor, as the elected leader of DC, to address Congress directly on issues specific to DC since Congress has ultimate control over DC. That is a separate function from the quasi-representative function performed by Eleanor Holmes Norton.

But in the end, as noted, you have again failed to answer the question. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that you have done so because you know there is no valid, substantive and constructive reason, and that this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness by Republicans. With a dose of racism too.

Which territories are now “denied a voice”?

How would floor privileges allow the mayor “to address Congress directly”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

This is correct. It is also correct that when Democrats did it 2 years ago, it was also virtue signaling. It is also a clear political statement from Republicans that they will not be treating DC as equivalent to a state like Democrats do or entertain any potential statehood considerations. That’s just politics.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

Which special Federal districts and territories pay Federal income tax?

You think people in DC don’t pay federal income tax?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Republican virtue signaling, given that Bowser has never been on the floor of the House in all her years as Mayor.

Stupid is as stupid does.

This is correct. It is also correct that when Democrats did it 2 years ago, it was also virtue signaling. It is also a clear political statement from Republicans that they will not be treating DC as equivalent to a state like Democrats do or entertain any potential statehood considerations. That’s just politics.

Yep, Republicans will do everything in their power to keep black and brown people from having a voice in the federal government.

Maybe, but DC is a plurality white city now. So I am not sure how race is a factor.

It’s majority non-white, and that plurality is by about 0.1%. And don’t forget they did the same for governor from US territories. Do you want to take a guess on the demographics of US territories?

DP. There is an obvious race-neutral explanation in that neither DC nor territories are states.

So they, and the Americans who live there, don’t matter?

This is a really good way to galvanize support for DC statehood. I’ve been opposed to it in the past, but garbage like this makes me think the pros outweigh the cons.

Good for you for your change of mind on statehood. For the record, because we are the United STATES of America, non-states and territories obviously do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as states.

So you believe the Americans living in DC and territories are lesser. Got it.

DC and territories have a different relationship vis-a-vis the Federal government than states.

And so their needs are lesser? What purpose is served from banning their leaders from the House floor while affording those privileges to the states? No one has been able to provide the slightest justification for why this is a positive, productive thing for Republicans to do. I won’t hold my breath for you to do so either, because you know that it’s really just a petty stick it to the libs move.

The obligations of the Federal government towards them are different.

Yes, the obligations are different. Since Congress maintains ultimate control over DC and has denied it state-level self-governance, it has even greater obligations to DC than to the states. Your point actually argues for the opposite of what Republicans have done.

Which special Federal districts and territories pay Federal income tax?

Anonymous wrote:She's not a Governor