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

[HappyJoy]

Other then federal taxes what tax do they pay?

Not state tax, which they should because they would actually have a say in how it's spent.

Is this like 7th degree Chess for you guys or something?

 

[hadit]

Why?

Because the nation's capital was never supposed to be a state. When you choose to live somewhere, you accept the negative as well as the positive aspects of that decision. If I choose to live in Montana, I don't complain because my house doesn't sit next to the ocean. That's the way it is. If I choose to live in Florida, I don't complain that there are no mountains to look at. That's the way it is. If I choose to live in San Francisco, I don't complain that I can't find a decent place to live and there's crap on the sidewalk because that's the way it is and no one seems to know how to fix it. If I choose to live in DC, I don't complain that I don't get to vote for a Senator. That's how it goes.

 

[HappyJoy]

Because the nation's capital was never supposed to be a state.

Hey, and it still wouldn't be. I know you don't understand that.

When you choose to live somewhere, you accept the negative as well as the positive aspects of that decision. If I choose to live in Montana, I don't complain because my house doesn't sit next to the ocean.

Ok, let's make Montana a non-state then. I mean, the founding fathers never saw a state that has almost 40 times the population to have the same representation anyway. Right? They can move.

That's the way it is.

^Let's throw that part out, it's useless.

If I choose to live in Florida, I don't complain that there are no mountains to look at.

Yeah again with the topography. Why not keep it to government?

That's the way it is. If I choose to live in San Francisco, I don't complain that I can't find a decent place to live and there's crap on the sidewalk because that's the way it is and no one seems to know how to fix it. If I choose to live in DC, I don't complain that I don't get to vote for a Senator. That's how it goes.

Other than you obviously never having stepped foot in San Francisco. Those residents have a say in their state government.

 

[hadit]

Hey, and it still wouldn't be. I know you don't understand that.




Ok, let's make Montana a non-state then. I mean, the founding fathers never saw a state that has almost 40 times the population to have the same representation anyway. Right? They can move.




^Let's throw that part out, it's useless.



Yeah again with the topography. Why not keep it to government?



Other than you obviously never having stepped foot in San Francisco. Those residents have a say in their state government.

DC residents have a say in their city government. Maybe they should stop electing democrats if they don't like the way things are going.

 

[HappyJoy]

DC residents have a say in their city government. Maybe they should stop electing democrats if they don't like the way things are going.

Funding. They have no say in how many is spent in their communities. Why can you not wrap your heads around that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hey, and it still wouldn't be. I know you don't understand that.




Ok, let's make Montana a non-state then. I mean, the founding fathers never saw a state that has almost 40 times the population to have the same representation anyway. Right? They can move.




^Let's throw that part out, it's useless.



Yeah again with the topography. Why not keep it to government?



Other than you obviously never having stepped foot in San Francisco. Those residents have a say in their state government.

Rhode Island was a founding State as I recall.

 

[HappyJoy]

Rhode Island was a founding State as I recall.

I didn't bring up Rhode Island and I think you mean one of the original colonies.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I didn't bring up Rhode Island and I think you mean one of the original colonies.

You talked about the founders not understanding low population States.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Nothing says Republicans can’t win in DC
They just need to convince voters their lives will be better under Republican leadership

DC's population is made up of either government workers, or people dependent on government for survival. Neither group would vote for a Republican if his opponent was Genghis Khan. If the only candidate running was a Republican, they simply wouldn't vote at all.

 

[rightwinger]

DC's population is made up of either government workers, or people dependent on government for survival. Neither group would vote for a Republican if his opponent was Genghis Khan. If the only candidate running was a Republican, they simply wouldn't vote at all.

It is Republicans responsibility to convince voters that their lives would be better under Republicans

Democrats did it in Arizona and Georgia

 

[hadit]

It is Republicans responsibility to convince voters that their lives would be better under Republicans

Democrats did it in Arizona and Georgia

And Republicans seem to be doing in on a national scale right now.

 

[HappyJoy]

You talked about the founders not understanding low population States.

No, that's not what I said.

 

[rightwinger]

Funding. They have no say in how many is spent in their communities. Why can you not wrap your heads around that?

DC voters have no say in how their money is spent anywhere in the world
No input on public policies at all
No input on judges

 

[HappyJoy]

DC voters have no say in how their money is spent anywhere in the world
No input on public policies at all
No input on judges

Yep, I'm just focusing on their own community however yes these American citizens don't have a say in anything our federal government does anywhere. Un-American.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because the nation's capital was never supposed to be a state.

And blacks were supposed to be slaves and not vote. Things change. And we already know it was not intended to be a State. So this is not compelling.

So I ask again: Why not make it a State now?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And blacks were supposed to be slaves and not vote. Things change. And we already know it was not intended to be a State. So this is not compelling.

So I ask again: Why not make it a State now?

Because making a city a State sets a very bad precedent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because making a city a State sets a very bad precedent.

It isn't a city. It is a district. And slippery slope arguments are not compelling. Making DC a State takes no land away from any State. Unlike every US city. Not comparable.

Got anything else?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because making a city a State sets a very bad precedent.

Oh, I dunno...
Let's separate metro Chicago from the remainder of the state.
Add 2 red senate seats.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, I dunno...
Let's separate metro Chicago from the remainder of the state.
Add 2 red senate seats.

No comparison. Weak strawman.

 

[rightwinger]

Because making a city a State sets a very bad precedent.

How many other US cities don’t have Senators or Congressmen?