• 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!

New states?

New states?

  • Total voters
    27
Henrin said:
Haha, so you admit they didn't overlook it. They limited the powers, powers that have since been ignored allowing the capital to grow.
Click to expand...

Whose fault is THAT? You mother****ers that actually HAVE representation in Congress are the ones who elect our national government. The only representation that DC has at all in our federal government is 3 electoral votes for president...and we didn't even have that until 1964.

If you're not satisfied with the governments that have been elected over the past 200 years, maybe we should take away YOUR state's representation. Because I guarantee you that the people of your state have sent more people to Congress who have expanded federal power, than the residents of DC have (hint: we have sent zero).

Like I said if you wish to ignore the intentions and live in place with no representation that is your choice, but don't cry to me about it. I have nothing to feel for you.
Click to expand...

You're not a libertarian, you are literally supporting a dictatorship.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
What is kind of sad is that human beings (politicians, no less) who lived 200 years ago are so revered today by people who don't want to think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Just because I agree with them a great deal doesn't mean I don't think for myself. Now, why don't you come up with another attack that isn't slavery related.
 
Swizz said:
What do you mean, I just praised their ideas
Click to expand...

I mean its never well they did this wrong. Its always well they were horrible people because they had slaves. So they were a product of their times like every other damn person alive at the time and just like every damn person alive today. Is this supposed to scare me off? It doesn't have a chance of doing anything of the sort, sorry.

What I want to hear is people blast original intent and see if they can stand up to it, not blast them by saying they ****ed slaves in their free time. That is just meaningless gibberish that isn't worth the time it takes to write or speak.
 
Kandahar said:
Whose fault is THAT? You mother****ers that actually HAVE representation in Congress are the ones who elect our national government. The only representation that DC has at all in our federal government is 3 electoral votes for president...and we didn't even have that until 1964.
Click to expand...

I was never placing blame on the people of DC but many of them are the results of the problem.


You're not a libertarian, you are literally supporting a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I support the idea you get some sense and move out of DC and all those people that work in the capital move to Maryland.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I mean its never well they did this wrong. Its always well they were horrible people because they had slaves. So they were a product of their times like every other damn person alive at the time and just like every damn person alive today. Is this supposed to scare me off? It doesn't have a chance of doing anything of the sort, sorry.

What I want to hear is people blast original intent and see if they can stand up to it, not blast them by saying they ****ed slaves in their free time. That is just meaningless gibberish that isn't worth the time it takes to write or speak.
Click to expand...

They weren't horrible people. They were flawed. They were human. They had ideas that are now outdated, such as slavery. Their ideas are not better because they thought of them. A good idea is a good idea of its own merit, not based on whose idea it was. 800,000 people living in our nation's capital without the right to elect their leaders or have any kind of real self-governance is not a good idea.

The founders didn't want DC to be IN a state, because it would suggest an undue amount of favoritism toward that state. The people who ran the country would grant extra benefit to their home state. But let's take a look. Every congressman does this for their home state, and no single state has any kind of dominance. Plus, very few congressmen actually live in DC. They live in Maryland or Virginia. DC would have no special gifts afforded to it if it were to become a state. The reason for the founder's intention to keep the capital from statehood has proven to be incorrect.
 
It was a joke, calm down
 
Henrin said:
Just because I agree with them a great deal doesn't mean I don't think for myself. Now, why don't you come up with another attack that isn't slavery related.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about slavery. But now that you mention it, the fact that you support forcing DC residents to abide by federal laws while offering them no input to change them...yeah, that IS pretty close to slavery. Want me to shuck and jive and pick your cotton? I guess I'll have to, if your Congress to which I had no representation tells me to.

All the hillbilly crap about America always supporting freedom and democracy is bull****. Not only is it plainly false in our foreign policy, but you're perfectly willing to deny freedom and democracy to your fellow countrymen. Because somehow it's OUR fault that YOU (the residents of the parts of the US where democracy is in effect) elected a federal government you're unhappy with. :2mad:
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I was never placing blame on the people of DC
Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY what you're doing when you advocate dictatorship over DC residents because you're unhappy with the actions of the federal government.

but many of them are the results of the problem.
Click to expand...

DC's economy (as it relates to the federal government) is nothing more than a reflection of YOUR elected officials' priorities.

No, I'm not. I support the idea you get some sense and move out of DC and all those people that work in the capital move to Maryland.
Click to expand...

I see. So it's OK that we have a dictatorship because we can always leave. Now where else have I heard that argument?
 
Kandahar said:
I didn't say anything about slavery. But now that you mention it, the fact that you support forcing DC residents to abide by federal laws while offering them no input to change them...yeah, that IS pretty close to slavery. Want me to shuck and jive and pick your cotton? I guess I'll have to, if your Congress to which I had no representation tells me to.
Click to expand...

Don't worry you can work and get paid. But I charge for walking, sleeping, eating, crapping and pissing, sorry. Hope you have some left over. :)

All the hillbilly crap about America always supporting freedom and democracy is bull****. Not only is it plainly false in our foreign policy, but you're perfectly willing to deny freedom and democracy to your fellow countrymen. Because somehow it's OUR fault that YOU (the residents of the parts of the US where democracy is in effect) elected a federal government you're unhappy with.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with my happiness level. All I'm saying here is how it is. What I feel about it one way or the other doesn't come into account.
 
Kandahar said:
I didn't say anything about slavery. But now that you mention it, the fact that you support forcing DC residents to abide by federal laws while offering them no input to change them...yeah, that IS pretty close to slavery. Want me to shuck and jive and pick your cotton? I guess I'll have to, if your Congress to which I had no representation tells me to.

All the hillbilly crap about America always supporting freedom and democracy is bull****. Not only is it plainly false in our foreign policy, but you're perfectly willing to deny freedom and democracy to your fellow countrymen. Because somehow it's OUR fault that YOU (the residents of the parts of the US where democracy is in effect) elected a federal government you're unhappy with.
Click to expand...


This is major victimization. I mean, could someone be more of a victim than a slave? not only that, but it is major nonsense. It is obvious that the federal capital needs to be on federal land. Placing the federal capital on state-controlled land, in a federal republic, would be retarded. No, perhaps the residents of DC when the federal land was created could have raised some objection, as they were the residents of the land when the zoning took place; however, no one is forced to live in DC today. Those residents can get out of their so-described gimp box anytime they like and move elsewhere. That's one of the great things abot US federalism and state power... move somewhere else and the rules change.

Choosing to live on the tiny piece of federal land that constitutes our federal capital and then claiming to be a slave as a result of that choice is some seriously weak nonsense. I mean, wow, could someone be any more of a victim.


I see. So it's OK that we have a dictatorship because we can always leave. Now where else have I heard that argument?
Click to expand...

Does anyone buy that he is a slave living under dictatorship? I bet the same guy will tell us about how democratic Iran is, more so than DC.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
It is obvious that the federal capital needs to be on federal land.
Click to expand...

That's fine, if the feds want to have a federal district they can keep the National Mall, including the White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court. But leave the people who actually LIVE in the District out of it.

Placing the federal capital on state-controlled land, in a federal republic, would be retarded. No, perhaps the residents of DC when the federal land was created could have raised some objection, as they were the residents of the land when the zoning took place; however, no one is forced to live in DC today. Those residents can get out of their so-described gimp box anytime they like and move elsewhere. That's one of the great things abot US federalism and state power... move somewhere else and the rules change.
Click to expand...

Everywhere ELSE the rules change because the people elected various state governments to set the rules in accordance with their political preferences. Not here. We have an elected city council, but this dictatorial entity called the United States Congress can and does override our council's decisions when they don't like the decisions.

Choosing to live on the tiny piece of federal land that constitutes our federal capital and then claiming to be a slave as a result of that choice is some seriously weak nonsense. I mean, wow, could someone be any more of a victim.
Click to expand...

Either democracy is one of our principles or it isn't. That's bull**** for the same reason it would be bull**** if STATES tried to oppress their citizens, on the grounds that their residents can get the **** out whenever they want.

I bet the same guy will tell us about how democratic Iran is, more so than DC.
Click to expand...

I'd call it a toss-up. Both Iran and DC have some elected officials who nominally set the policy agenda, but are frequently overruled by far more powerful entities who were not elected by their residents.
 
Last edited:
I think we have to judge on the size and the connection to the US. The only possibility right now is DC and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is an obvious candidate.

All other territories are too small to become US states.
 
What ever happened to personal accountability? I mean come on...It's pretty common knowledge what DC is like. No representation, highest crime area in the US, has the strictest gun control laws in the country and worst of all...lots of politicians...why anyone would choose to live there and then moan and complain about what they chose to live/move into is beyond me.

Whats that ole' saying? "You dug the hole, now you have to sleep in it". Or some such.
 
Camlon said:
I think we have to judge on the size and the connection to the US. The only possibility right now is DC and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is an obvious candidate.

All other territories are too small to become US states.
Click to expand...

Too small? Sheesh...You can drive across Rhode Island in under an hour. (and I'm talking about the longest stretch at that)
 
Camlon said:
I think we have to judge on the size and the connection to the US. The only possibility right now is DC and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is an obvious candidate.

All other territories are too small to become US states.
Click to expand...

Actually, Guam, the US Virgin Islands have more than enough people to meet the 1787 60,000 resident requirements to apply for statehood. And if you incorporate all the South Pacific Islands as one entitiy I am sure they would have enough too.

DC should not be a state though. These in DC can move to Virgina or to Maryland; the transit systems is sufficient now to accommodate if people have a problem with their rights. The Capital should be a force within itself.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Too small? Sheesh...You can drive across Rhode Island in under an hour. (and I'm talking about the longest stretch at that)
Click to expand...

I'm talking about population, not physical size. Rhode Island got 1,052,567 people in 2010, while Guam got 178,430 and US Virgin Islands got 109,825. They are simply too small to get two senators.
 
hallam said:
Actually, Guam, the US Virgin Islands have more than enough people to meet the 1787 60,000 resident requirements to apply for statehood. And if you incorporate all the South Pacific Islands as one entitiy I am sure they would have enough too.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about requirements, especially when the requirement hasn't been changed since 1787.

I'm saying that their population is too small to get two senators. I don't think you can join them into one entity either. The islands are quite different, so I don't think they want to join into one state.
 
Well Hank Johnosn (D) was right.....Guam just capsized.........so they are off the list.......


.
.
.
.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

If anything, DC has become so corrupt that there is an even GREATER reason today to deny them statehood. The citizens should be absorbed by one of the surrounding states and the transient government employees should become very much MORE transient.
 
Camlon said:
I'm not talking about requirements, especially when the requirement hasn't been changed since 1787.

I'm saying that their population is too small to get two senators. I don't think you can join them into one entity either. The islands are quite different, so I don't think they want to join into one state.
Click to expand...

I don't understand you. States are given two senators no matter the size. New York (19 million) has as many Senators as Wyoming (530,000). Now if we are talking about Representatives, there are several states with small populations that only have 1 House vote. Only PR would get more than 1.



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.
 
Last edited:
I guess there's lots of "reasons" DC shouldn't have the right to representation within Congress (whether adopted into Maryland or as its own state), but none of those trump the idea that all US citizens should have a voice in our representative body.
 
jamesrage said:
DC is the capital so no. There is a reason our forefathers did not want it to have the same status as a state.
Click to expand...

Because they wanted an unmanaged, crazed group of people to go without control and law.

DC itself is a wretched slum - expect for the Capital area . . . the people who live there are underpriviledged and denied what all other americans have.

They should redefine DC's borders and relegate 'capital' status to the capital area itself and grant statehood to the remaining populous.
 
Nanten Janubi said:
I guess there's lots of "reasons" DC shouldn't have the right to representation within Congress (whether adopted into Maryland or as its own state), but none of those trump the idea that all US citizens should have a voice in our representative body.
Click to expand...

If those people have an issue with losing rights, then they can move to Maryland or another state and regain those rights. DC as a federal entity should not have a seat at the table. States are actually more than just the people they represent. States are entities in and of themselves. DC as a state would be the only state which would have all the states rights but would also be the federal government as well. There would be no separation No other state could do this accept for maybe Nevada. It is an unfair advantage for DC in certain situations and since there is an reasonable alternative, DC shouldn't be made a state.

Further the logistics of making DC a state now are, frankly, ridiculous. We are talking about either setting up many cities within DC currently for the current neighborhoods. Or we are talking about giving DC people local government and State government which would cover the exact same populous and be charged with same duties.

This issue is actually similar to the Armed Forces. If you decide to join the Army, then you are giving up rights such as the right to free speech. Now I know, that the joining the Army is a voluntary act and that living in DC may be something thrust upon you by birth, but the same truth holds here. No one is forcing anyone to live in DC. There are alternatives.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Because they wanted an unmanaged, crazed group of people to go without control and law.

DC itself is a wretched slum - expect for the Capital area . . . the people who live there are underpriviledged and denied what all other americans have.

They should redefine DC's borders and relegate 'capital' status to the capital area itself and grant statehood to the remaining populous.
Click to expand...


Could we compromise and relegate the Capital status to the capital area itself and outlying federal buildings and give the rest back to Maryland?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom