- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No answer has been given. Virtually every argument against DC statehood in this thread has boiled down to one of three things, all of which are retarded:
1. "DC shouldn't be a state because the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom and hive mind which can never be questioned, thought we needed a separate federal district because of some archaic concerns that have utterly failed to materialize in 200 years."
2. "DC shouldn't be a state because you can always move to a part of the country where democracy is actually in effect."
3. "DC shouldn't be a state because the federal government needs to retain control over the National Mall where no one except the Obamas actually lives...and for some mysterious reason, also the rest of the city of Washington, where people actually DO live."
And imo its retarded to move to an area where you know that you don't have representation. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Read the thread again. There is another answer.
You know, you could have just spelled it out instead of being coy, and it would have saved us both time. Forget it, I'm not going to play games. If you have some amazingly good reason for imposing a dictatorship on American citizens (note: some variant on one of the three retarded arguments I gave above is NOT an amazingly good reason), then just say it. I'm not going to attempt to read your mind.
How in the world am I being coy? I told you that the answer was already given in this thread and there is no reason to rehash it. It is not my fault that you refuse to read. There is no need to attempt to read my mind. Take off your blinders.
Washington, D.C., is governed by a mayor and a 13-member city council. However, the United States Congress has supreme authority over the city and may overturn local laws. Residents of the District therefore have less self-governance than residents of the states. The District has a non-voting, at-large Congressional delegate, but no senators. D.C. residents could not vote in presidential elections until the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1961.
They were not omnipotent gods who had the answer to every political issue, they were human beings who were products of their era (which happened to be the 1760s-1790s) and often made mistakes.
Does DC have any industry? Natural Resources?
Our forefathers can go **** themselves.
Our forefathers can go **** themselves. Their reasons for not wanting DC statehood 200 years ago are not a good enough reason to deny DC residents the right to a representative democracy today.
To all,
Here is another reason DC shouldn't get to be a state. It is local government functions as a state currently. Breaking up DC into small communities is not warranted and giving DC a Governor, Assembly, and State Senate in addition to the Mayor and City Counsel where everyone would just be leading the exact same population would just cause confusion, more political division, and be a waste to money. There is more to being a state then just getting House Members and Senators.
Why should we have to move in order to live in a democratic society?
I did not know this:
No, I don't see people moving as more ridiculous because not everyone has a problem with losing these rights and not everyone who lives in DC feel as though they are DC'ns (?). The people in DC live there for many reasons most move there for federal positions, are staff to the federal government, or work for federally supporting business (e.g. restaurants, hotels, lobbying groups, NGO, Non-Profits, etc). Those who really feel that they are being slighted can move to Virgina, Maryland, WV, Delaware, PA or some other state and commute in. The transit system is pretty expansive in DC by the way.
Because DC was specifically created to hold the US government on independent land. It is all federal land. If you were born there, sorry but the Federal government being independent is more important to the people of DC getting Congressional representation since there are alternatives. If you moved there, then you knew what you were getting into.
I might add that if the roles were reversed and Philly was the nations capital on Federal land and created specifically to hold the Federal government outside of any States control, then the same rules would apply. I moved to Philly. I would have known that moving here would mean that I wouldn't get representation. If I had a significant issue with this (which I probably wouldn't), then I could move further into PA or to MD, DE, or NJ to get representation. Like DC, SEPTA makes living in any of these areas easy to commute into Philly.
Dude...the vast majority of Washingtonians don't live in DC because they wanted to move here.
Explain why they shouldn't have representation in Congress?
I and others already have. There are a multitude of logistical and wasteful ways to have DC be a state which would give them duplicate representation for what amounts to the local government they already have. And adding DC as a state would defeat the whole reason with creating DC in the first place. Again a State is an entity by itself. It does represent people but it does more than that. To make DC a state would essentially allow the Federal Government to have a seat at the State table when the States are supposed to be separate than the FG. It is a conflict.
I'm not asking for DC to be a state. I still believe that they should have some form or representation in Congress, whether they are a state or not.
As for the Federal Government being represented as a state, that is completely inaccurate. DC is so much more than just the home of the Federal Government, and the interests of the CITY and that of the Federal Government are often not at all aligned.
At its base, DC the city is the Federal Government. If these people feel that they need representation, then let them move to Virgina or Maryland.
No, it's really not. DC is basically one big hood, with a government district and some touristy areas attached.
The majority of DC residents aren't DC residents because they moved here to work for the government. They are DC residents because they were BORN HERE.
Yes it is. I wont deny the touristy stuff but DC was created solely to hold and support the Federal Government. It was created solely so that a place could be separated out and no state could try to control the FG. It was never designed to be a place where people actually live outside of their actual home states. People are supposed to go there as a representative of a state (or support staff) and then once finished go home to whatever state they came from.
And no, there are some DC residents who were born there but the majority move there and know what they are getting into.
As for the Federal Government being represented as a state, that is completely inaccurate. DC is so much more than just the home of the Federal Government, and the interests of the CITY and its RESIDENTS and that of the Federal Government are often not at all aligned.
At this point in time, none of this is relevant when it comes to the fact that citizens of Washington, DC do not have fair representation.
You clearly don't know a whole lot about DC. Forgive me for being blunt.
Anyway, regardless of all the above, THIS is the point I'm trying to drive home and I'll repeat it again.
DC has its own, thriving native resident population that is separate from the federal government bureaucracy that is located there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?