• 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!

Should DC Become the 51st State?

Should DC Become the 51st State?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 20.8%

  • No

    Votes: 55 76.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 2.8%
  • Total voters
    72
Henrin said:
Roll your eyes if you want, but I really don't want more democratic congressmen or another state like Maryland.
Click to expand...

So your big reason for not wanting to grant DC statehood and give DC residents proper representation in the federal government is based purely on your partisan hackery.

Nice.
 
Crovax said:
I'm all for democracy but just like Egypt, DC has proved they are not ready to make responsible choices
Click to expand...

You are in no position to decide what choices are "responsible" or not. The point of a democracy is everyone gets a choice, regardless of what the others think of that choice.

Should we bump all the southern states out of the union because I don't think their voting habits are responsible? Should we just refuse to let those I deem "irresponsible" vote?
 
TeleKat said:
So your big reason for not wanting to grant DC statehood and give DC residents proper representation in the federal government is based purely on your partisan hackery.

Nice.
Click to expand...

Partisan hackery? Ah no, it's based on my understanding of democratic socialist ideology and what it means to my freedoms.
 
Henrin said:
Partisan hackery? Ah no, it's based on my understanding of democratic socialist ideology and what it means to my freedoms.
Click to expand...

It's partisan hackery. You want to deny statehood and representation to DC residents simply because you presume they would vote Democrat and you don't like that.
 
TeleKat said:
You are in no position to decide what choices are "responsible" or not. The point of a democracy is everyone gets a choice, regardless of what the others think of that choice.

Should we bump all the southern states out of the union because I don't think their voting habits are responsible? Should we just refuse to let those I deem "irresponsible" vote?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between having an ideological difference and continuing to elect a known drug addict to office. We don't allow felons to vote because they have made choices so bad they have shown they don't have the capacity to make a responsible vote, DC is no different.
 
Flamethrower said:
A tiny plot of land like DC doesn't need the power of having 2 senators.
Click to expand...
Why not? The founders had a huge debate about it and came to a compromise to satisfy both small and large states. Came to a compromise each state will get 2 senators no matter what the size and population, and each state will get a number of representatives in proportion to their population....

If they want more representation, then they should be allowed to vote for senators as part of the socialist state of Maryland.
Click to expand...
5vq9hl.jpg
 
Crovax said:
There is a difference between having an ideological difference and continuing to elect a known drug addict to office.
Click to expand...

Not really. You don't have the right to deem who can vote or not based on arbitrary "responsibility" you think they may or may not have.

We don't allow felons to vote because they have made choices so bad they have shown they don't have the capacity to make a responsible vote
Click to expand...

Felons, after they have served their time, should be allowed to vote. I once again point out that it is not your right to decide who is and is not "responsible" enough to vote.
 
How about a different spin: The Fed's use eminent domain and claim a portion of DC's land. Everyone who's unfortunate enough to be affected must live outside of the newly created lines. The land left over is equally distributed to the bordering states. No one in DC proper now can "live" there. No businesses can operate in DC proper - in other words remove any ability for non government workers to live or do business of any kind. Hotels will not operate in this newly drawn area either - hotels must operate outside of the DC lines.

This solves lots of problems - no taxes inside DC so no taxation without representation. No new 51'st state required - DC stays intact albeit smaller. Increase of taxes to the surrounding states as more people and businesses will be moved into them given the new state lines.
 
Ockham said:
How about a different spin: The Fed's use eminent domain and claim a portion of DC's land. Everyone who's unfortunate enough to be affected must live outside of the newly created lines. The land left over is equally distributed to the bordering states. No one in DC proper now can "live" there. No businesses can operate in DC proper - in other words remove any ability for non government workers to live or do business of any kind. Hotels will not operate in this newly drawn area either - hotels must operate outside of the DC lines.

This solves lots of problems - no taxes inside DC so no taxation without representation. No new 51'st state required - DC stays intact albeit smaller. Increase of taxes to the surrounding states as more people and businesses will be moved into them given the new state lines.
Click to expand...

How about we not use a blatantly immoral and authoritarian tactic to force people out of their homes?
 
TeleKat said:
It's partisan hackery. You want to deny statehood and representation to DC residents simply because you presume they would vote Democrat and you don't like that.
Click to expand...

Actually, I support adding DC to Maryland and giving them voting rights that way. I oppose adding another state because that would mean more individuals will be elected with democratic socialist ideology. If however they join Maryland it won't change much of anything since they pretty much already vote that way. If you really think I'm not going to look after my own interests then well you're wrong. My interests are my freedoms, and I will do what I must to protect them. In this case that means opposing statehood for DC.
 
TeleKat said:
How about we not use a blatantly immoral and authoritarian tactic to force people out of their homes?
Click to expand...

Sure but this is the FED we're talking about. And since when is our government moral and non authoritarian?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Why not? The founders had a huge debate about it and came to a compromise to satisfy both small and large states. Came to a compromise each state will get 2 senators no matter what the size and population, and each state will get a number of representatives in proportion to their population....


5vq9hl.jpg
Click to expand...

Classes in Math may be of help:

Size of Washington DC: 68 sq miles

Size of Smallest of the 13 colonies Rhode Island: 1212 sq miles.

So a small urban area---only 5% of the size of the smallest state is in need of full Statehood and two Senators?

What was that you were saying about equality and fairness?
 
Henrin said:
Actually, I support adding DC to Maryland and giving them voting rights that way. I oppose adding another state because that would mean more individuals will be elected with democratic socialist ideology. If however they join Maryland it won't change much of anything since they pretty much already vote that way. If you really think I'm not going to look after my own interests then well you're wrong. My interests are my freedoms, and I will do what I must to protect them. In this case that means opposing statehood for DC.
Click to expand...

Well you can be that way all day long, it still makes you a partisan hack.
 
Ockham said:
Sure but this is the FED we're talking about. And since when is our government moral and non authoritarian?
Click to expand...

Our government is immoral and it is authoritarian, but that does not mean we should grant it the power to do even more immoral and authoritarian things.
 
TeleKat said:
Our government is immoral and it is authoritarian, but that does not mean we should grant it the power to do even more immoral and authoritarian things.
Click to expand...
My suggestion doesn't give them anything they don't already have. While it is immoral and authoritarian it fits in with their current views and it solves problems to boot. It's not the best solution but it's different than what's been discussed so far. :wink:


Yes I'm playing devils advocate... just in case anyone was wondering.
 
TeleKat said:
Not really. You don't have the right to deem who can vote or not based on arbitrary "responsibility" you think they may or may not have.



Felons, after they have served their time, should be allowed to vote. I once again point out that it is not your right to decide who is and is not "responsible" enough to vote.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you think a convicted murderer should vote, but most of us don't and that's why most can't. It's not up to me personally but society and I think if you look at DC's voting history they are clearly not responsible enough as a community to vote. We as society does get to decide who votes and who doesn't, no matter which mass murder or child rapist you think should be able vote.
 
TeleKat said:
Well you can be that way all day long, it still makes you a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

I'm a business owner and I would like to open a school one day, and guess what democratic socialists hate more than anything? I'm not a hack, but someone that opposes an ideology that stands in opposition to me. I have all the reason in the world to want them to stay the hell away from government.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Why not? The founders had a huge debate about it and came to a compromise to satisfy both small and large states. Came to a compromise each state will get 2 senators no matter what the size and population, and each state will get a number of representatives in proportion to their population....


5vq9hl.jpg
Click to expand...
^^^^^^

Says the guy who wants to dismantle the US Constitution. :doh
 
Flamethrower said:
A tiny plot of land like DC doesn't need the power of having 2 senators. If they want more representation, then they should be allowed to vote for senators as part of the socialist state of Maryland.

Also, the nation as a whole would benefit by not having two Marion Barry's whoring and doing coke while serving on the Senate.
Click to expand...

DC has a larger population than Vermont and Wyoming. Want to take their Senators away as well?
 
Flamethrower said:
Classes in Math may be of help:

Size of Washington DC: 68 sq miles

Size of Smallest of the 13 colonies Rhode Island: 1212 sq miles.

So a small urban area---only 5% of the size of the smallest state is in need of full Statehood and two Senators?

What was that you were saying about equality and fairness?
Click to expand...

Land area had nothing to do with it.
 
Flamethrower said:
Classes in Math may be of help:

Size of Washington DC: 68 sq miles

Size of Smallest of the 13 colonies Rhode Island: 1212 sq miles.

So a small urban area---only 5% of the size of the smallest state is in need of full Statehood and two Senators?

What was that you were saying about equality and fairness?
Click to expand...

Again. It does not matter about size.
 
Henrin said:
I'm a business owner and I would like to open a school one day, and guess what democratic socialists hate more than anything? I'm not a hack, but someone that opposes an ideology that stands in opposition to me. I have all the reason in the world to want them to stay the hell away from government.
Click to expand...

So your own interests override all other considerations? You'd disenfranchise people because they don't believe as you?
 
Gaius46 said:
Land area had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Really?

So there was no rhyme, reason or logic when the borders of the 13 colonies were drawn?

Sorry, but size does matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom