• 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
You say the logistics of making DC a state are ridiculous, but don't think the logistics of everyone moving out are even more ridiculous? That's interesting.
 
Nanten Janubi said:
You say the logistics of making DC a state are ridiculous, but don't think the logistics of everyone moving out are even more ridiculous? That's interesting.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'logistics'.

Anyway, you think it's okay for some American citizens to live without representation not based upon their actions, but upon where they live.

I don't. Difference of opinion, I guess.
 
Nanten Janubi said:
I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'logistics'.

Anyway, you think it's okay for some American citizens to live without representation not based upon their actions, but upon where they live.

I don't. Difference of opinion, I guess.
Click to expand...

The military live without some rights. They are citizens too. Prisoners live without certain rights in some communities. They are citizens too. There are a several reasons why a person may not have full enfranchisement. There are reasons why the people of DC do not. Those reasons are legitimate and the solutions are quite easy. They can either live without the right or move. I might add, that they do not lose all their rights here. They are just losing the right to federal representation in the House and the Senate. They still get federal funds for education, health, and green subsidies to name a few. They still have local government. They still have rights under the Bill of Rights and Amendments. They still vote for the President. These people are not slaves to the government as Kandahar suggests. No one is forcing them to say in DC and they all by now should know what living in DC means by now.
 
hallam said:
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.
Click to expand...
Realize this, I'm not talking about rules, at all.

I'm saying it is not fair to the other states to introduce a state with 100K in population, because they will get two senators like everyone else.
 
Camlon said:
Realize this, I'm not talking about rules, at all.

I'm saying it is not fair to the other states to introduce a state with 100K in population, because they will get two senators like everyone else.
Click to expand...

There supposed to get two senators. All states get two senators. This counter-argument doesn't make sense as senate seats are not based on population.
 
hallam said:
The military live without some rights. They are citizens too. Prisoners live without certain rights in some communities. They are citizens too. There are a several reasons why a person may not have full enfranchisement. There are reasons why the people of DC do not. Those reasons are legitimate and the solutions are quite easy. They can either live without the right or move. I might add, that they do not lose all their rights here. They are just losing the right to federal representation in the House and the Senate. They still get federal funds for education, health, and green subsidies to name a few. They still have local government. They still have rights under the Bill of Rights and Amendments. They still vote for the President. These people are not slaves to the government as Kandahar suggests. No one is forcing them to say in DC and they all by now should know what living in DC means by now.
Click to expand...

I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'logistics'.

Anyway, you think it's okay for some American citizens to live without representation not based upon their actions, but upon where they live.

I don't. Difference of opinion, I guess.
 
Nanten Janubi said:
I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'logistics'.

Anyway, you think it's okay for some American citizens to live without representation not based upon their actions, but upon where they live.

I don't. Difference of opinion, I guess.
Click to expand...

This still isn't a counter-argument to why DC shouldn't be a state. Duplication of duties, the fact that most in DC are citizens of there States, the States being entities in themselves, and the complete disaster awaiting trying to make DC state are all issue not yet addressed. If this is really a concern, then the compromise noted earlier could work. Take all the actually federal land (Congress, the WH, SCOTUS and other federal buildings) separate them out and then return the private land to Maryland. DC would remain as a complete federal district and the others would become Marylanders.
 
To deny the people of Washington DC their representation by Senators is to deny them equal rights as Americans.
 
haymarket said:
To deny the people of Washington DC their representation by Senators is to deny them equal rights as Americans.
Click to expand...

To deny the people of DC their representation by Congress is the price for living in DC. No one is making them live there.
 
Let them be states if they so desire. It's better than not having them as our territory. Having territories under US control in the pacific like Guam are excellent for our national defense.
 
other territories are more than welcome to become American states.

but once they're in...they're in. no going back.

we are not a confederation of independent states, like the EU.

we are ONE country, ONE nation.

don't join us unless you want to be part of that.
 
VanceMack said:
If anything, DC has become so corrupt that there is an even GREATER reason today to deny them statehood.
Click to expand...

Huh, corruption? DC has its share (e.g. Vince Gray and Marion Berry), but it has a hell of a lot less corruption than some actual states like Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, or Illinois. And unlike those states, DC's government is reasonably competent and effective overall. So that's no reason to deny it statehood.

The citizens should be absorbed by one of the surrounding states and the transient government employees should become very much MORE transient.
Click to expand...

Neither Maryland nor Virginia wants DC, so that solution doesn't work.
 
hallam said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why should we have to move in order to live in a democratic society?
 
hallam said:
To deny the people of DC their representation by Congress is the price for living in DC. No one is making them live there.
Click to expand...

How about we deny Philly residents representation in Congress? Sorry, that's the price you have to pay for living there. And if you don't like it, GTFO and live somewhere else.
 
Nanten Janubi said:
I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'logistics'.

Anyway, you think it's okay for some American citizens to live without representation not based upon their actions, but upon where they live.

I don't. Difference of opinion, I guess.
Click to expand...

Them moving to DC was an action. Them not moving from DC is also an act.
 
Kandahar said:
How about we deny Philly residents representation in Congress? Sorry, that's the price you have to pay for living there. And if you don't like it, GTFO and live somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Its not the nations capitol.
 
Henrin said:
There was a reason for that. You should try googling it.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the people that pay taxes yet get no representation.. You can google that if you like..
 
Kal'Stang said:
Its not the nations capitol.
Click to expand...

So what? You still haven't explained why DC residents should be denied democracy just by nature of the fact that there are some federal buildings downtown on the Mall.
 
Henrin said:
Like I just said there never was supposed to be a big city there.
Click to expand...

Well.. Why don't you go google why there is a big city there.. Then google why the people that live there pay taxes but have no representation.. Then google whether our not you would like to live under those circumstances.. Perhaps next time you tell someone to google something.. You ask for clarification..

Like Kandahar, I don't care what they wanted 200 some odd years ago.. A fairly large number of people essentially live in poverty and without the aid of a state, even though they pay taxes.. They also hav no say in the law and no representation..

I don't need google to make the statement.. 'I think it is lame that D.C. is not a state.. ' You on other hand are lame for telling me to use google!!
 
Kandahar said:
So what? You still haven't explained why DC residents should be denied democracy just by nature of the fact that there are some federal buildings downtown on the Mall.
Click to expand...

The answer has already been given in this thread multiple times. No need to rehash it when it will just get ignored again.
 
Well, I think he means a rational answer, not just "any answer". Not letting American citizens vote because of where they live is, ya know, kinda retarded.
 
Nanten Janubi said:
Well, I think he means a rational answer, not just "any answer". Not letting American citizens vote because of where they live is, ya know, kinda retarded.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The answer has already been given in this thread multiple times. No need to rehash it when it will just get ignored again.
Click to expand...

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."

#1 is ****ing stupid on its surface because it's nothing more than a refusal to think for one's self; the Founding Fathers' concerns are so ancient that they wouldn't even OCCUR to us today if some dude with a wig hadn't talked about them 200 years ago. #2 is not actually a rationale against democracy in DC, it's just an excuse to prohibit it. And #3 fails to explain why the federal district needs to be anywhere near as large as it actually is. The feds can keep the National Mall, White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court...those of us who live here don't give a damn.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom