Should DC become a state and get 2 Senators and voting rights for residents?

[HappyJoy]

gerrymander in more votes.

got it.

Admit you can't compete with most Americans and throw up every roadblock to avoid that consequence.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why or why not?

I say NO.

The remaining part of DC should be given BACK to Maryland...and then the residents have voting rights as Marylandins.

Virginia already got their piece back...now give MAryland back their piece.

By the way, the 3 westernmost counties in MAryland are trying to leave Maryland and join WEST VIRGINIA.

MAryland should love this...shed off a bunch of Red votes.

Yes, but only if they take the swamp creatures of Northern Virginia.

 

[struth]

Neat.

why not break Cali up? it’s far too big of an area and too many people

 

[HappyJoy]

why not break Cali up? it’s far too big of an area and too many people

That's up to them.

Do you really want a state controlled by mostly Democrats to be in charge of forming two smaller states? It'd be pretty easy to ensure both are controlled by Democrats but you do you.

However I do agree that California is under represented in Congress.

 

[struth]

That's up to them.

Do you really want a state controlled by mostly Democrats to be in charge of forming two smaller states? It'd be pretty easy to ensure both are controlled by Democrats but you do you.

However I do agree that California is under represented in Congress.

then they should break up

 

[HappyJoy]

then they should break up

Back to the first line of my post.

That's up to them.

 

[Lesh]

the easiest thing to do for DC residence, that would not take a Constitutional amendment…is to simply excempt then from federal taxes

Wrong. No Amendment needed

 

[struth]

Wrong. No Amendment needed

um yeah the Constitution requires a federal district

 

[Lesh]

um yeah the Constitution requires a federal district

It's already been explained to you that the populated section of DC can be simply carved out leaving the Federal District to satisfy those Constitutional edicts. Why do you pretend ignorance?

 

[22lcidw]

It's already been explained to you that the populated section of DC can be simply carved out leaving the Federal District to satisfy those Constitutional edicts. Why do you pretend ignorance?

Of course there are many states or areas within states that have the same ideas. California split into two. Oregon split into two and Washington State split into two to start. Guaranteed the representation they currently have does not sit well with them not in blue areas.

 

[struth]

It's already been explained to you that the populated section of DC can be simply carved out leaving the Federal District to satisfy those Constitutional edicts. Why do you pretend ignorance?

but that’s all land that MD donated to help form the district…shouldn’t it go back to MD?

and what are we talking 8sq miles?

seems rather foolish to make that a state.

Why not just do the easy thing and exempt them from federal taxes? that would solve the no taxation without representation narrative

what are we going to do about these too big states? like Cali? shouldn’t we break them up? even texas? and then states like Montana, that need more people, shouldn’t we split up part of washington and just give it to Montana?

 

[Lesh]

but that’s all land that MD donated to help form the district…shouldn’t it go back to MD?

and what are we talking 8sq miles?

seems rather foolish to make that a state.

Why not just do the easy thing and exempt them from federal taxes? that would solve the no taxation without representation narrative

what are we going to do about these too big states? like Cali? shouldn’t we break them up? even texas? and then states like Montana, that need more people, shouldn’t we split up part of washington and just give it to Montana?

but that’s all land that MD donated to help form the district…shouldn’t it go back to MD?
That was 200 years ago. Irrelevant now. Donate land to a church and they can do what they want with it.

and what are we talking 8sq miles?
Irrelevant. It has a population greater than several states. We represent by population not sq miles.

And your "too big states" HAVE representation. DC has none

 

[struth]

but that’s all land that MD donated to help form the district…shouldn’t it go back to MD?
That was 200 years ago. Irrelevant now. Donate land to a church and they can do what they want with it.

and what are we talking 8sq miles?
Irrelevant. It has a population greater than several states. We represent by population not sq miles.

And your "too big states" HAVE representation. DC has none

1) why is it not relevant? If the Federals don't want the land donated they need to return the land
2) sure it's relevant.....can an 8 square mile "state" with no natural resources sustain itself? Montana, Mississippi, RI etc all have land to be able to produce for themselves if need be.

Yeah, DC is a Federal District....of course it doesn't have representation, that's the entire point the Founders created it for....the much easier solution if that's what you are whining about is simply exempt the DC residences from Federal taxes. Why is nobody offering that as a solution?

Then we need to break Cali into three parts....maybe Texas into two....

 

[Lesh]

1) why is it not relevant? If the Federals don't want the land donated they need to return the land

Once you surrender property you no longer have rights to that property. Can a church sell off land once donated to it? Yes it can.

2) sure it's relevant.....can an 8 square mile "state" with no natural resources sustain itself? Montana, Mississippi, RI etc all have land to be able to produce for themselves if need be.

We do not allocate representation based on natural resources...or lack of them. It is and always HAS BEEN about population.

Your "solutions" are based on your partisan political agenda.

 

[hadit]

Force themselves on Maryland? OK, that doesn't work.



It's not up to the rest of the country. Just Congress and the citizens of D.C. . However a plurality of Americans want statehood.

Support for D.C. Statehood Is Lukewarm, but Many Voters Haven't Made Up Their Minds

Outside the confines of the House Democratic Caucus, polling shows public support for D.C. statehood is lukewarm at best.

morningconsult.com

Whatever that means.



No evidence the district was meant to deny what amounts to over 25% of the population at the time the District was formed. Plus, there will still be a District of Columbia that serves he same purpose.



Nobody wants to do that including other states.


DC residents pay some of the highest federal income taxes already and they also have local taxes as well. Pretty sure they know what they are getting into but thanks for your 'concern'.

The Founding Fathers destroyed a ship's cargo of tea and started an armed conflict to protest being taxed but not represented. Where is the massive groundswell of DC residents demanding statehood so they can vote? All I ever see is a bunch of people NOT living in DC insisting that we have to make a new state no matter what, and they're all democrats.

 

[JWBooth]

Giving the 700k tax leeches two senators? Then every community of equal or greater size should have the same representation.

 

[Lesh]

The Founding Fathers destroyed a ship's cargo of tea and started an armed conflict to protest being taxed but not represented.

You may want to look into that.

The Tea Party was about colonial smugglers trying to gain a competitive advantage by destroying the product of their competitor

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Go back to the beginning. Why was it not made a state initially? What was the rationale??

 

[struth]

Once you surrender property you no longer have rights to that property. Can a church sell off land once donated to it? Yes it can.

We do not allocate representation based on natural resources...or lack of them. It is and always HAS BEEN about population.

Your "solutions" are based on your partisan political agenda.

1) a church is a charitable organization…the federal govt isn’t

2) we are talking about statehood…not merely representation, without taxation….there are far more easy solutions then statehood to solve that issue

and yes, resources has been a factor in statehood in the past

try again

 

[Lesh]

1) a church is a charitable organization…the federal govt isn’t

2) we are talking about statehood…not merely representation, without taxation….there are far more easy solutions then statehood to solve that issue

and yes, resources has been a factor in statehood in the past

try again

1. Irrelevant. The Church’s tax exempt status has no bearing

2. You’re talking about YOUR preference. Representation is based on population