Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

#46 President Joe Biden

18911131440

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,784
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,784
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    hippiemom = goodness
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 5,828
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea. 
    Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea. 
    Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island. 
    1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant.  Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".  
    2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood?  There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size.  And DC clears that easily.  
    3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant.  DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood.  Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,784
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea. 
    Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island. 
    1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant.  Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".  
    2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood?  There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size.  And DC clears that easily.  
    3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant.  DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood.  Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.  
    Where in the constitution was it that Wyoming couldn't be a state?  Not a relevant comparison.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea. 
    Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island. 
    1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant.  Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".  
    2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood?  There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size.  And DC clears that easily.  
    3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant.  DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood.  Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.  
    Where in the constitution was it that Wyoming couldn't be a state?  Not a relevant comparison.
    The point is that once the Wyoming territory reached the population threshold to be a state, it was able to become a state.  I'm not aware of any great debate saying that it should be absorbed by some other state.  Why would such a thing happen to the District when it meets the statehood requirement.  
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,784
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
    Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!

    Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now.  It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
    Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!

    Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now.  It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
    I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.  

    There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation. 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,986
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
    Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!

    Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now.  It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
    I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.  

    There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation. 
    But can you sing and dance? 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
    Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!

    Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now.  It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
    I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.  

    There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation. 
    But can you sing and dance? 
    Like Hugh Jackman and Julie Andrews had a love child. 
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 5,828
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea. 
    Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island. 
    1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant.  Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".  
    2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood?  There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size.  And DC clears that easily.  
    3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant.  DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood.  Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.  
    2 - Fair point. It just seems a little silly to be making smaller states. There is nothing in the constitution about minimum state size. Just seems silly to me to have a state smaller than most counties, that's just my opinion. Also, states do not get equal representation, they favor smaller states. If we just start expanding the US and create tiny states, we should level the playing field. 

    1 and 3- You seem to contradict here. You say the degree in which they care is irrelevant, but then say they have asked for it so it should be a state. So is what they want irrelevant or is that enough reason to make it a state? Which really was my question, have they asked for it? I've heard other people talking about making DC a state, but how much have we heard from those living there? I'm asking because I don't know. It should at least be up to a vote before some politicians sign some papers and make it a state, give them a governor and senators etc just to gain 2 seats. This whole argument of they deserve representation would be completely irrelevant if they are happy the way it is. Maybe they like the idea of being a non-state.
    And the discussion of the capitol and congress is relevant if the whole concept of DC was to house congress and federal buildings in a non-state territory. If that was the purpose and intent of DC, then why change it now? I mean, other than to gain 2 seats?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 5,828
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
    Wasn't most, or all of DC from Virginia? Thats why it makes sense to me if they want to be a state now, to give it back to VA and not just form a new state. If roads are an issue and not up to the same standards as the rest of the state there could be some federal assistance with that. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea. 
    Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island. 
    1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant.  Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".  
    2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood?  There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size.  And DC clears that easily.  
    3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant.  DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood.  Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.  
    2 - Fair point. It just seems a little silly to be making smaller states. There is nothing in the constitution about minimum state size. Just seems silly to me to have a state smaller than most counties, that's just my opinion. Also, states do not get equal representation, they favor smaller states. If we just start expanding the US and create tiny states, we should level the playing field. 

    1 and 3- You seem to contradict here. You say the degree in which they care is irrelevant, but then say they have asked for it so it should be a state. So is what they want irrelevant or is that enough reason to make it a state? Which really was my question, have they asked for it? I've heard other people talking about making DC a state, but how much have we heard from those living there? I'm asking because I don't know. It should at least be up to a vote before some politicians sign some papers and make it a state, give them a governor and senators etc just to gain 2 seats. This whole argument of they deserve representation would be completely irrelevant if they are happy the way it is. Maybe they like the idea of being a non-state.
    And the discussion of the capitol and congress is relevant if the whole concept of DC was to house congress and federal buildings in a non-state territory. If that was the purpose and intent of DC, then why change it now? I mean, other than to gain 2 seats?
    2 - well I guess that could happen, but that means a city is essentially seceding from its current state.  I don't see that happening often.  
    1/3 - There was a referendum in 2016 for the district and it passed 86%.  So my point was that there are probably people who don't care about it, but there are plenty who do.  And turnout was 65%.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C._statehood_referendum
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,784
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
    Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!

    Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now.  It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
    I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.  

    There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation. 
    But can you sing and dance? 
    Hahahaha I bet not well...either of them!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,986
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
    Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!

    Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now.  It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
    I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.  

    There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation. 
    But can you sing and dance? 
    Hahahaha I bet not well...either of them!!!

    I am informed otherwise, with a mental image that is now indelibly seared into my brain. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I never really understood the DC is a State argument.  I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state.  Seemed like a smart move in reality.

    That said, I really don't care.  If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok.  But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
    Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 people


    Yes, this is exactly the point. 
    Doesn’t change their reasoning 
    Whose reasoning?  Jefferson's and co.?
    Ah yup.

    I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state.  The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state.  In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats.  Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
    I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today.  Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them. 
    Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government are ;)

    It’s a pretty interesting discussion really.  I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas.  I’m sure that would be very easy too! ;)

    Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?


    This is not a Constitutional issue.  DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson.  The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc).  That's not particularly difficult.  Every state has federal buildings within their borders.  

    Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me.  As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.  
    Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!

    Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now.  It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
    I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.  

    There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation. 
    But can you sing and dance? 
    Hahahaha I bet not well...either of them!!!

    I am informed otherwise, with a mental image that is now indelibly seared into my brain. 
    You know it's a beautiful thing. 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 20,565
    none of this has anything to do with Biden.
    start your own goddamn thread
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mickeyrat said:
    none of this has anything to do with Biden.
    start your own goddamn thread
    He lives in DC.  We're fighting for him to have representation. 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 20,565
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    none of this has anything to do with Biden.
    start your own goddamn thread
    He lives in DC.  We're fighting for him to have representation. 

    Stop. he currently lives on federal property. His home is in Delaware.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    none of this has anything to do with Biden.
    start your own goddamn thread
    He lives in DC.  We're fighting for him to have representation. 

    Stop. he currently lives on federal property. His home is in Delaware.
    I'm a big picture guy, super strategic.  Don't bog me down in these details.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 20,565
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    none of this has anything to do with Biden.
    start your own goddamn thread
    He lives in DC.  We're fighting for him to have representation. 

    Stop. he currently lives on federal property. His home is in Delaware.
    I'm a big picture guy, super strategic.  Don't bog me down in these details.

    MY point still holds.
    its a worthy topic for its own thread.

    for those that say its just politicians are overlooking just how long this "movement" has been around.

    wonder how long they have had those plates? see them often here in Cbus.

    Thread integrity, been super relaxed this past week. Biden has been busy. Its good to see. you read about pressers, readouts, you know NORMALCY.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    none of this has anything to do with Biden.
    start your own goddamn thread
    He lives in DC.  We're fighting for him to have representation. 

    Stop. he currently lives on federal property. His home is in Delaware.
    I'm a big picture guy, super strategic.  Don't bog me down in these details.

    MY point still holds.
    its a worthy topic for its own thread.

    for those that say its just politicians are overlooking just how long this "movement" has been around.

    wonder how long they have had those plates? see them often here in Cbus.

    Thread integrity, been super relaxed this past week. Biden has been busy. Its good to see. you read about pressers, readouts, you know NORMALCY.....
    Boring!!! 
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,355
    Ok I’ll go.  Biden just destroyed thousands of Union jobs in oil and gas and the sky is falling. Also according to memes circulating he told pipe liners to go find other jobs. Did I mention...The Sky Is Falling
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,748
    static111 said:
    Ok I’ll go.  Biden just destroyed thousands of Union jobs in oil and gas and the sky is falling. Also according to memes circulating he told pipe liners to go find other jobs. Did I mention...The Sky Is Falling
    Yeah they are saying he banned fracking, which he didn't do.  He just wont' expand it on federal lands.  The horror.  And the he stopped the pipeline.  
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 33,824
    Biden has gone right to work reversing some of Trump's horrible anti-environment legislation.  I say, Big Kudos to that!
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 33,824
    static111 said:
    Ok I’ll go.  Biden just destroyed thousands of Union jobs in oil and gas and the sky is falling. Also according to memes circulating he told pipe liners to go find other jobs. Did I mention...The Sky Is Falling

    I hope they do find other jobs and it would be helpful if the new current administration were helping in that pursuit.   The smart thing for folks out of work in the oil industry would be to look for work in alternative energy because that is the future.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • static111static111 Posts: 2,355
    edited January 28
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    Ok I’ll go.  Biden just destroyed thousands of Union jobs in oil and gas and the sky is falling. Also according to memes circulating he told pipe liners to go find other jobs. Did I mention...The Sky Is Falling

    I hope they do find other jobs and it would be helpful if the new current administration were helping in that pursuit.   The smart thing for folks out of work in the oil industry would be to look for work in alternative energy because that is the future.
    Or structural, storage tanks, ship building, power plants  etc.  literally the only difference is the metal isn’t in a round tube.   Still have coatings, inspections, welding etc etc.  having just come out of a bad covid related unemployment stretch I do sympathize greatly with those who will be looking, because they will all be looking at the same time and in the same industry which is never good.
Sign In or Register to comment.