Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

I am from WV. We absolutely do not “benefit” from a Democratic Senate. Only the urban poor do. Obama made that VERY clear.

Really? Byrd, a democratic senator from WV, funneled obscene amounts of money to your state. You have a Coast Guard office! That makes no sense!! If you’re so unhappy with all the benefits democrats have given WV, can we get some of those funds back? Also, I’m sure another state would love to have those federal offices.

Love how these posts always go. What you, and my other critics here, don’t understand is that not everything is about money. The cultural differences are much more important. That is why you keep thinking you have elections in the bag that you then either lose or narrowly win. You don’t want to hear it, but that’s reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Republicans support retrocession, which would give DC residents representation. The issue is the number of senators, nothing more.

You’ll say DC and Maryland have nothing in common, but that’s true for most states. The urban/rural divide is everywhere and cities also compete for influence within a state. Retrocession would make DC/Maryland the economic powerhouse of the region and reduce Va’s influence. Keeping DC and md separate works in Va’s favor.

Have you wondered why there is a Virginia and a West Virginia? Or maybe why there are two Dakotas? Or why Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are three different states? The issue is the number of senators.

You called it right. How about we consolidate all of the red states into one that equals California and call it a day?

Absolutely, let's consolidate Virginia and West Virginia; the Dakotas; Wyoming and Montana - and then I will absolutely agree to retrocession into Maryland. Obvi, Kristi Noem is killing off as many S. Dakotans as she can, so "New Dakota" is gonna be hella-Ghost Town, but what-evs.

None of those things are possible without the consent of the states in questions.

And DC statehood is only a cause because the Democrats want to guaranty two more permanent Democratic Senatores and one Representative. It's not going to happen.

Retrocession is the only realistic way DC residents get representation in Congress.

No.

DC statehood is a cause because 700,000 citizens are taxed up the wazoo and have no representation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Republicans support retrocession, which would give DC residents representation. The issue is the number of senators, nothing more.

You’ll say DC and Maryland have nothing in common, but that’s true for most states. The urban/rural divide is everywhere and cities also compete for influence within a state. Retrocession would make DC/Maryland the economic powerhouse of the region and reduce Va’s influence. Keeping DC and md separate works in Va’s favor.

Have you wondered why there is a Virginia and a West Virginia? Or maybe why there are two Dakotas? Or why Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are three different states? The issue is the number of senators.

You called it right. How about we consolidate all of the red states into one that equals California and call it a day?

Absolutely, let's consolidate Virginia and West Virginia; the Dakotas; Wyoming and Montana - and then I will absolutely agree to retrocession into Maryland. Obvi, Kristi Noem is killing off as many S. Dakotans as she can, so "New Dakota" is gonna be hella-Ghost Town, but what-evs.

None of those things are possible without the consent of the states in questions.

And DC statehood is only a cause because the Democrats want to guaranty two more permanent Democratic Senatores and one Representative. It's not going to happen.

Retrocession is the only realistic way DC residents get representation in Congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

I am from WV. We absolutely do not “benefit” from a Democratic Senate. Only the urban poor do. Obama made that VERY clear.

Really? Byrd, a democratic senator from WV, funneled obscene amounts of money to your state. You have a Coast Guard office! That makes no sense!! If you’re so unhappy with all the benefits democrats have given WV, can we get some of those funds back? Also, I’m sure another state would love to have those federal offices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

I am from WV. We absolutely do not “benefit” from a Democratic Senate. Only the urban poor do. Obama made that VERY clear.

Tennessee Valey Authoroty?
All of the federal jobs Sen Byrd brought to WVA?
The highways that Byrd and now Manchin are bringing to WVA?

But sure, the GOP is a panacea for the rural poor.

A WV Democrat is a Republican anywhere else. We absolutely don’t share the Democratic Party’s platform.

That is fine and dandy. Without the urban areas, WVA wouldn't receive the massive state subsidies that it does, and even with those, the state ranks near the bottom in health, GDP and education. Maybe you should think about how the GOP has failed your state?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

I am from WV. We absolutely do not “benefit” from a Democratic Senate. Only the urban poor do. Obama made that VERY clear.

WV would most definitely benefit from an increase in regional political power.

Right now it's just an afterthought for the GOP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

I am from WV. We absolutely do not “benefit” from a Democratic Senate. Only the urban poor do. Obama made that VERY clear.

Tennessee Valey Authoroty?
All of the federal jobs Sen Byrd brought to WVA?
The highways that Byrd and now Manchin are bringing to WVA?

But sure, the GOP is a panacea for the rural poor.

A WV Democrat is a Republican anywhere else. We absolutely don’t share the Democratic Party’s platform.

Yeah, my neighbor had a brother-in-law in West Virginia like that. He went to college on the GI bill, he was a federal employee at a federal building named after Senator Byrd, he drove to work on a federal highway named after Senator Byrd, his wife was on SSDI, and on weekends he sat around and complained about the overreaching federal government that only benefited the undeserving "urban poor" (and we all know what "urban poor" is a euphemism for).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

I am from WV. We absolutely do not “benefit” from a Democratic Senate. Only the urban poor do. Obama made that VERY clear.

Tennessee Valey Authoroty?
All of the federal jobs Sen Byrd brought to WVA?
The highways that Byrd and now Manchin are bringing to WVA?

But sure, the GOP is a panacea for the rural poor.

A WV Democrat is a Republican anywhere else. We absolutely don’t share the Democratic Party’s platform.

Anonymous wrote:DC is a city not a state

Wyoming is a mountain range and a prairie- both devoid of people. That didn't prevent statehood

DC is a city not a state

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

I am from WV. We absolutely do not “benefit” from a Democratic Senate. Only the urban poor do. Obama made that VERY clear.

Tennessee Valey Authoroty?
All of the federal jobs Sen Byrd brought to WVA?
The highways that Byrd and now Manchin are bringing to WVA?

But sure, the GOP is a panacea for the rural poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin cannot possibly do anything else. He represents WV. It would be unethical, really, to support DC statehood.

Unethical is not the right word, but it's true that it's not what his constituents want.

A more Democratic Senate would probably help states like WV a lot but who cares about that. It's all about culture wars.

I am from WV. We absolutely do not “benefit” from a Democratic Senate. Only the urban poor do. Obama made that VERY clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is unconstotutional to do that.

But that isn't what is would be happening with DC.

The point is, many states were formed specifically to game the Senate. With urban migration, the population disparaties are forcing a tyranny of the minority, which is untenable.

I’ve read your post like 7 times, and I STILL can’t figure out WTH you’re talking about.

And the word is “unconstitutional”.

many states were formed specifically to game the Senate.
Look at how ND/SD/ID/MT were created. At the time, it packed the Senate with GOP despite the lack of population etc that other states prior had.


With urban migration
People are growing up in many rural red states and leaving in droves for other opportunities in other places, mostly blue urban areas. This population drain is creating a situation where we will have 65 Senators representing 35% of the country's population. How it is fair that Wyoming and SD are so over-represented in the Senate, and yet the voters in CA or NY or TX are so under-represented. I understand the intent of the founders in creating this system, but if the culture wars between rural and urban continue to deteriorate, it will be untenable. Hence

tyranny of the minority
Which if you have never read the works that inspired our republic, means a small minority of the population is holding rule over the majority. Neither a majority nor majority rule is desirable, but when the vast majority of favored legislation is being killed time and time again by rule, white, male politicians, people will grow increasingly impatient with our form of government, likely forcing a change. I am not suggesting it or advocating for it, but it is reality when humans are being subjugated, to force a change.

Now that my simple note has been explained, do you still need to read it 7 times to understand it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While we're at it, California is way too large. It needs to be divided in two.

Same for Texas.

Florida has two different time zones. Definitely need to split that up, too. That’ll be two more likely Republican senators.

Same goes for the eastern parts of Oregon and Washington, which are so different from the coastal parts of the state that they could be on different planets. So that’s four more Republican senators.

Go ahead, dims. Play the “create a state to get two more senators” game. And then we’ll show you how the game gets won.

It is unconstotutional to do that.

But that isn't what is would be happening with DC.

The point is, many states were formed specifically to game the Senate. With urban migration, the population disparaties are forcing a tyranny of the minority, which is untenable.

I’ve read your post like 7 times, and I STILL can’t figure out WTH you’re talking about.

And the word is “unconstitutional”.

States can no longer break themselves into smaller states the way WVA/VA and MA/ME/NY/OH did.