Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So what is the benefit to WV of a Republican senate? And I mean for the regular people of WV, not coal mining companies.

They feel most strongly about guns, religion and pro-life. You may disagree, but that’s the benefit. You Dems are the enemy, and it shocks me you don’t appear to know that.

And that is how Byrd, Manchin, etc get such great pork for the state....they give on a few things and get paid well in return for those party-line votes. We aren’t stupid, that is how the game is played.

No, Im asking what the actual benefit it. Just good feelings when a woman can’t get an abortion? Guns are not going to be taken away or freedom of religion. They’re both in the constitution. The GOP uses those issues to scare voters and drive up support. But what is the actual, tangible benefit to WV?

You aren’t thinking clearly. You don’t see value in those things. WV citizens do. They will not elect officials who might erode those things. You might not understand it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a benefit to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So what is the benefit to WV of a Republican senate? And I mean for the regular people of WV, not coal mining companies.

They feel most strongly about guns, religion and pro-life. You may disagree, but that’s the benefit. You Dems are the enemy, and it shocks me you don’t appear to know that.

And that is how Byrd, Manchin, etc get such great pork for the state....they give on a few things and get paid well in return for those party-line votes. We aren’t stupid, that is how the game is played.

No, Im asking what the actual benefit it. Just good feelings when a woman can’t get an abortion? Guns are not going to be taken away or freedom of religion. They’re both in the constitution. The GOP uses those issues to scare voters and drive up support. But what is the actual, tangible benefit to WV?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So what is the benefit to WV of a Republican senate? And I mean for the regular people of WV, not coal mining companies.

They feel most strongly about guns, religion and pro-life. You may disagree, but that’s the benefit. You Dems are the enemy, and it shocks me you don’t appear to know that.

And that is how Byrd, Manchin, etc get such great pork for the state....they give on a few things and get paid well in return for those party-line votes. We aren’t stupid, that is how the game is played.

The concept of a principled position is so foreign to Republicans at this point that they are literally incapable of recognizing one. The principle behind DC statehood is that the Americans who live here deserve representation in the legislative branch of government which makes the laws as well as self-determination to run their own jurisdiction as they and their locally elected leaders see fit. Remember how you used to pretend to care about local control of government? There is literally no principled argument against it. They SOLE reason Republicans don't want DC statehood is because they perceive DC as too liberal. It is a 100% partisan hack position, which is made especially clear when they argue for retrocession, acknowledging that the boundaries of the federal zone mandated by the constitution need not remain the same. You might as well admit what you are. We see you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, representation simply isn't going to happen. And, I'm comfortable saying that it shouldn't happen because it wll add 2 Democratic Senators in perpetuity.

Or maybe the Republicans could consider proposing policies that appeal to voters in DC...?

Why? DC votes 95% Democratic.

You're asking Republicans to dilute their own power for people who, generally speaking, hate Republicans. Do you think that's a reasonable ask on your part?

And don't lie to me and say you'd be as riled up about this if DC was mostly populated by white Southerners.

Why? Because usually it's considered to be a good thing, in a democracy, when people vote for you, so that you can win elections? But maybe that's just me being naive.

Except that’s not how the Senate works. I’d like a filibuster that requires votes from senators representing 60 percent of Americans. That would ensure legislation is supported by a supermajority of Americans and prevent minority rule.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what people say when they're picking your pocket.

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.

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.

So what is the benefit to WV of a Republican senate? And I mean for the regular people of WV, not coal mining companies.

Anonymous wrote:
Sure, but I doubt Democrats would be falling all over themselves to admit the hypothetical state of Western Dakota into the Union.

I get it, if I was a Democrat I too would be making high-minded noises about how it's the right thing to do to admit DC as a state.

Wait, there's already North Dakota AND South Dakota, which exist so that the former Dakota Territories would get 4 senators instead of 2, and now you also want to add West Dakota, so 6 senators? 6 senators for 1.6 million people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, representation simply isn't going to happen. And, I'm comfortable saying that it shouldn't happen because it wll add 2 Democratic Senators in perpetuity.

Or maybe the Republicans could consider proposing policies that appeal to voters in DC...?

Why? DC votes 95% Democratic.

You're asking Republicans to dilute their own power for people who, generally speaking, hate Republicans. Do you think that's a reasonable ask on your part?

And don't lie to me and say you'd be as riled up about this if DC was mostly populated by white Southerners.

Why? Because usually it's considered to be a good thing, in a democracy, when people vote for you, so that you can win elections? But maybe that's just me being naive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, representation simply isn't going to happen. And, I'm comfortable saying that it shouldn't happen because it wll add 2 Democratic Senators in perpetuity.

Or maybe the Republicans could consider proposing policies that appeal to voters in DC...?

Why? DC votes 95% Democratic.

You're asking Republicans to dilute their own power for people who, generally speaking, hate Republicans. Do you think that's a reasonable ask on your part?

And don't lie to me and say you'd be as riled up about this if DC was mostly populated by white Southerners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fine, give us DC residents the same deal as Puerto Rico. No taxation or representation.

But, representation simply isn't going to happen. And, I'm comfortable saying that it shouldn't happen because it wll add 2 Democratic Senators in perpetuity.

Well plenty of states have two republican senators in perpetuity.

Sure, but I doubt Democrats would be falling all over themselves to admit the hypothetical state of Western Dakota into the Union.

I get it, if I was a Democrat I too would be making high-minded noises about how it's the right thing to do to admit DC as a state.

Anonymous wrote:

But, representation simply isn't going to happen. And, I'm comfortable saying that it shouldn't happen because it wll add 2 Democratic Senators in perpetuity.

Or maybe the Republicans could consider proposing policies that appeal to voters in DC...?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fine, give us DC residents the same deal as Puerto Rico. No taxation or representation.

But, representation simply isn't going to happen. And, I'm comfortable saying that it shouldn't happen because it wll add 2 Democratic Senators in perpetuity.

Well plenty of states have two republican senators in perpetuity.

Anonymous wrote:Love Joe Manchin!! Sending him a nice campaign donation.

Why? I really don’t get this.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fine, give us DC residents the same deal as Puerto Rico. No taxation or representation.

But, representation simply isn't going to happen. And, I'm comfortable saying that it shouldn't happen because it wll add 2 Democratic Senators in perpetuity.