Mayor of DC flies 51 Star U.S. Flags to Protest Lack of DC Statehood

D.C. should never become a state. But they should have proportional full representation in the House. So should Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and USVI. That's the compromise that everyone should get on board with.

No. Only States are represented in the United STATES.

If residents of DC want to be represented as if in a State, return the residential areas to Virginia and Maryland.

If those other places want self representation beyond what they have, then they should ask for independence.
 
Besides attempting to get additional senators / congressmen that lean left, why would you adopt Washington DC as a state? This district shouldn't be aligned to a specific political party and should remain neutral .. statehood is a bad thing regardless of the benefits that Democrats may get.
 
D.C. should never become a state. But they should have proportional full representation in the House. So should Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and USVI. That's the compromise that everyone should get on board with.
why? I think the compromise should be to not let the DC residents have to pay any Federal taxes.

As far as those other places.....they aren't states, and don't pay federal taxes...so not sure why they should get representation.
 
I guess he doesn't understand federal law and why DC can never be a state.

They merely had to carve out the actual Federal Government from Washington DC. And make that area the Federal District of Columbia, leaving the rest of DC to become a state.
After all, there are more people in DC, than in Wyoming or Alaska.
 
They merely had to carve out the actual Federal Government from Washington DC. And make that area the Federal District of Columbia, leaving the rest of DC to become a state.
After all, there are more people in DC, than in Wyoming or Alaska.
Nope all of DC is a federal district.
 
D.C. should never become a state. But they should have proportional full representation in the House. So should Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and USVI. That's the compromise that everyone should get on board with.

I would be good with each territory having one voting representative in the House as opposed to having the symbolic representatives they have now.
 
Does the phrase "no taxation without representation" ring a bell?
D.C. gets billions and billions of dollars from the Federal Government every year. That is its representation. They get the green. The citizens get all of the social programs and all other free stuff. What they lack is several loudmouth self-serving arrogant Communists spouting expletives every day like many of the rest of the Progs in Congress. They are doing good.
 
They merely had to carve out the actual Federal Government from Washington DC. And make that area the Federal District of Columbia, leaving the rest of DC to become a state.
After all, there are more people in DC, than in Wyoming or Alaska.
Population isn't really the issue.....what for example can the people of this new state do to support themselves other then be depended on the Federal Govt? It would seem a large part of the revenue then new state, if not the over vast majority would be depended on Federal Govt...hence why the founders took issue with allowing the federal district to be a state.....they could merely vote themselves more money, etc.
 
why? I think the compromise should be to not let the DC residents have to pay any Federal taxes.

As far as those other places.....they aren't states, and don't pay federal taxes...so not sure why they should get representation.

First of all, why should DC residents pay no taxes when they still enjoy all the benefits of American citizenship? What you're suggesting is just plain stupid on its face.

Second, it is false to say that they don't pay federal taxes. While many are exempt from certain taxes, the fact remains that taxation is still applicable.

Third, even if we accept your taxation-centric premise, whatever taxes Americans living in certain territories may be alleviated from paying, those exemptions only exist at the will of Congress. Congress can tax those territories at any time, and therefore representation becomes morally necessary even under your faulty paradigm.

Fourth, your premise requires an assumption that the only purpose of the federal government is to levy taxes. What if there were no federal taxes at all? Under President Coolidge's famous premise that "taxes should be lower, and fewer people paying them" only 2% of the population had a federal tax liability. And he paid down a quarter of the public debt.

Finally, all American citizens who live in America have a vested interest in what the federal government does, as the federal government holds jurisdiction over all US territories.
 
No. Only States are represented in the United STATES.

What?

If you're saying that there are only states in the United States then you are clearly wrong.

If you are saying that only states are represented in the US Congress, then you're still wrong.

States are represented in the Senate. But people are represented in the House. Hence why I say that the people of the territories should have proportional representation in the House. As non-states, they should have no Senators.
 
First of all, why should DC residents pay no taxes when they still enjoy all the benefits of American citizenship? What you're suggesting is just plain stupid on its face.

Second, it is false to say that they don't pay federal taxes. While many are exempt from certain taxes, the fact remains that taxation is still applicable.

Third, even if we accept your taxation-centric premise, whatever taxes Americans living in certain territories may be alleviated from paying, those exemptions only exist at the will of Congress. Congress can tax those territories at any time, and therefore representation becomes morally necessary even under your faulty paradigm.

Fourth, your premise requires an assumption that the only purpose of the federal government is to levy taxes. What if there were no federal taxes at all? Under President Coolidge's famous premise that "taxes should be lower, and fewer people paying them" only 2% of the population had a federal tax liability. And he paid down a quarter of the public debt.

Finally, all American citizens who live in America have a vested interest in what the federal government does, as the federal government holds jurisdiction over all US territories.
1) I thought there argument was no taxation without representation? They shouldn't pay taxes because they live in the Federal district.....er I guess you really don't care about their complaint.
2) I know that's why I say they shouldn't pay federal income taxes
3) Make it a Constitutional amendment.
4) Cool...but if the issue is no taxation without representation, don't tax them...simple solution.
 
er I guess you really don't care about their complaint.

You're right about that. I don't much care about complaints. I care about having just and logical governance. I couldn't give a rat's ass about Democrats wanting to play bullshit politics to gain two extra blue Senators.
 
You're right about that. I don't much care about complaints. I care about having just and logical governance. I couldn't give a rat's ass about Democrats wanting to play bullshit politics to gain two extra blue Senators.
It's not just or logical to tax them without representation. I agree....it's completely illogical for the Dems not to get on board with this.
 
What?

If you're saying that there are only states in the United States then you are clearly wrong.

If you are saying that only states are represented in the US Congress, then you're still wrong.

States are represented in the Senate. But people are represented in the House. Hence why I say that the people of the territories should have proportional representation in the House. As non-states, they should have no Senators.

Only States get full representation. The others are usually non-voting observers that can speak on the floor but not vote.
 

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser on Monday ordered 51-star American flags to be displayed along Pennsylvania Avenue ahead of Flag Day, June 14.

The mayor said she directed her team to hang the 51-star flags "as a reminder to Congress and the nation that the 700,000 tax-paying American citizens living in Washington, D.C. demand to be recognized.


I know a lot of people are going to hate that. I don't think DC should ever be a state, that is not the purpose of carving out a "District of Columbia" in the first place. But I admire the defiance, misguided though I think it is. Here is what a 51 star flag would look like:

View attachment 657649

That one is intended to flown to support Puerto Rican statehood, which I oppose at the moment, but might be fine with if they lose their separatist faction. I'm surprised that it is symmetrical. Go figure.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, doesn't she believe in democracy (the Constitution), which clearly says that DC is a separate entity and cannot be a state?
 
No. The compromise is that they can move two miles into Maryland or Virginia and get the representation they willfully forfeited by choosing DC.
This is all a demmunist power play.
Democrat voters are retarded baboons.

Patrick J. Buchanan was born and raised in Washington and never felt deprived back when they had no elections at all in the city, according to his autobiography.

Smart people realized the special situation that they enjoyed there.
 

Forum List

Back
Top