• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders calls for statehood of D.C.

Patrickt said:
Sorry, but the issue isn't representation. The issue is four more Democrat Senators and more Democrat representatives. The concern Democrats have for proper representation is demonstrated by their willingness to have dead people voting, foreign nationals voting, and felons voting.

The solution of allowing the residents of DC to vote with Maryland is quite valid and Constitutional. Sadly, it wouldn't give the Democrats another two Senators. And they could continue to vote their favorite crack addict for mayor.

And, no, a felon does not, and should not, have all rights restored at the completion of his sentence. Does a man convicted of repeated forcible rapes have a right to not be discriminated against in employment at a girls boarding school, for example. The current administration thinks he does and doesn't think the school should know of the rapist's history.
Click to expand...

So here we get to the core of the conservative argument on this topic. Which is yes they would want DC statehood if only they voted Republican. But because they lean left then "NO!!!!!" Same crap excuse they have for not wanting Puerto Rico to have statehood as well. Just to maintain the over representation of conservatives in this country.

Textbook example of why conservatives make such horrible leaders.
 
jamesrage said:
Merge it with one of the surrounding states and problem is solved.
Click to expand...


Virginia consumed it's piece of DC long ago and turned it into Arlington.
 
poweRob said:
So here we get to the core of the conservative argument on this topic. Which is yes they would want DC statehood if only they voted Republican. But because they lean left then "NO!!!!!" Same crap excuse they have for not wanting Puerto Rico to have statehood as well. Just to maintain the over representation of conservatives in this country.

Textbook example of why conservatives make such horrible leaders.
Click to expand...

Agreed on that particular front. But as I stated before, Democrats had the house, the senate, and the presidency. D.C. never became a state then.
 
JasperL said:
You wouldn't see a problem if your state had NO reps and NO Senators, or you just don't care that 700,000 of the others don't? If it's just other people whose rights to representation in Congress you don't give a damn about, that is quite noble of you.... :roll:

Great Britain felt the same way about the colonies a while back. You might recall that there was a war fought, at least in part, over the principle that you're now disregarding.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily and considering that I lived there by choice and could easily move a mile? Nope. I could handle that.
 
poweRob said:
Funny you don't think taxation without representation is a pro OEM seeing how the birth of this country exactly because of that problem.
Click to expand...

I can only point out again that a small move down the road solves the problem. Spending political capital on creating a new State seems like a Mad Hatter plan.
 
joG said:
Not necessarily and considering that I lived there by choice and could easily move a mile? Nope. I could handle that.
Click to expand...

OK, so you can't address the merits of the issue at all. Got it! No need to discuss further.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so you can't address the merits of the issue at all. Got it! No need to discuss further.
Click to expand...

I don't claim any merits in creating a new State. That was you and quite unconvincingly, if I might add.
 
joG said:
I can only point out again that a small move down the road solves the problem. Spending political capital on creating a new State seems like a Mad Hatter plan.
Click to expand...

Which is why I think the dems generally don't move on the issue. Like the GOP they want to save their political capital so they can fight hard on behalf of their campaign donors instead.
 
joG said:
I don't claim any merits in creating a new State. That was you and quite unconvincingly, if I might add.
Click to expand...

I never limited the solution to a new state, and you haven't addressed the actual issue of representation in Congress except to say you don't give a damn because if the 700,000 people don't like it they can all presumably move.

Hell, if the U.S. government strips one of your rights (pick a right - the right to a firearm perhaps, or to free speech), there is an easy solution for you - YOU can always just move to another country! Right, that's a stupid argument... which is the point. A resident and citizen of the U.S. shouldn't have to move to exercise the ability to have representation in Congress. If you think otherwise, you haven't offered a coherent reason.
 
I wonder how many votes Eleanor Holmes Norton has placed during all her years in Congress. I'd bet a few thousand.
 
Henrin said:
Whatever state it is merged with it has to be a left wing state since DC is a left wing pothole.
Click to expand...

It's among the elite places run by liberals. Detroit and Chicago are others.
 
JasperL said:
Votes that count = ZERO.
Click to expand...

All were recorded and count to whichever side she voted. By doing so, she slightly diluted the voting weight of my representative and yours.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
All were recorded and count to whichever side she voted. By doing so, she slightly diluted the voting weight of my representative and yours.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. There are only 435 voting members in the House and Norton is not one of them - she is a delegate. So when legislation is being considered, a majority of 218 will always carry the day. From her website:

Q: How does Congresswoman Norton vote on legislation?

A: Congresswoman Norton does not vote on final passage of legislation but can vote on amendments in the Committee of the Whole....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
I never limited the solution to a new state, and you haven't addressed the actual issue of representation in Congress except to say you don't give a damn because if the 700,000 people don't like it they can all presumably move.

Hell, if the U.S. government strips one of your rights (pick a right - the right to a firearm perhaps, or to free speech), there is an easy solution for you - YOU can always just move to another country! Right, that's a stupid argument... which is the point. A resident and citizen of the U.S. shouldn't have to move to exercise the ability to have representation in Congress. If you think otherwise, you haven't offered a coherent reason.
Click to expand...

Oh.I did address the representation question. You can get yourself represented, if you want. You just cannot have your cake and eat it.
 
joG said:
I certainly do not see any reason to change the status quo. But maybe someone will explain why it makes sense.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that currently there are over 672,000 American citizens residing in the District of Columbia who have no representation in Congress?

That's more than either Vermont (626,000), or Wyoming (586,000) who each have 2 Senators and 1 Congressman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

D. C. has 1 non-voting DELEGATE to the House of Representatives. (As do Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.)

Consider the old war cry "No taxation without representation?"

Under Article IV, Section Three of the United States Constitution, which outlines the relationship among the states, Congress has the power to admit new states to the union.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
How about the fact that currently there are over 672,000 American citizens residing in the District of Columbia who have no representation in Congress?

That's more than either Vermont (626,000), or Wyoming (586,000) who each have 2 Senators and 1 Congressman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

D. C. has 1 non-voting DELEGATE to the House of Representatives. (As do Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.)

Consider the old war cry "No taxation without representation?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state
Click to expand...

I know all that. So?
 
joG said:
I know all that. So?
Click to expand...

First: Sorry. I forgot to read through the whole thread before I posted. I'd have noticed most of this was already raised.

Second: These are all American citizens living in the USA, and if you can't see the reason why they should have actual representation in Congress...

I'm certainly unwilling to try to convince you. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
First: Sorry. I forgot to read through the whole thread before I posted. I'd have noticed most of this was already raised.

Second: These are all American citizens living in the USA, and if you can't see the reason why they should have actual representation in Congress...

I'm certainly unwilling to try to convince you. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You want it changed. If you cannot convince, you will have to do it by dictate. And you certainly have not convinced me. You haven't really even reawakened my interest in a been there, got the t-shirt question, beyond alerting me to the fact that BS is as bad as I thought.
 
joG said:
You want it changed. If you cannot convince, you will have to do it by dictate. And you certainly have not convinced me. You haven't really even reawakened my interest in a been there, got the t-shirt question, beyond alerting me to the fact that BS is as bad as I thought.
Click to expand...

I did not say I wanted it changed. I was merely responding to your original question as to why anyone might. :shrug:
 
JasperL said:
That's just not true. There are only 435 voting members in the House and Norton is not one of them - she is a delegate. So when legislation is being considered, a majority of 218 will always carry the day. From her website:
Click to expand...

She has a full vote in committee, of which she serves on many, and particularly the Committee of the Whole House where most of the work gets done. She has introduced legislation and can speak on the house floor. She is 31st in Seniority and appears to have a great deal of influence. Committees are where the work gets done, not votes on final passage.

Is it the same? No, it isn't, but it isn't as meaningless as you assert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom