• 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
As long as people like Sen. Graham fear-monger about millions of Americans dying from ISIL WMDs at today's senate hearing,
you better believe it.

Obama is fighting multiple wars against the enemy abroad while Senators like Graham and McCain continue to war-monger
at home for boots on the ground with no speak-back from other GOPs
.

You appear to believe I mark republicans with a different label in this regard than democrats. Both democrats and republicans support the patriot act including Obama that expanded it to include those body scan see everyone naked machines and both parties support spying on American citizens. There can be no such thing as a right to safety in a free society. Period.

Warmongers are plague to humanity and a constant thorn in the side of anyone that desires peace, but that is hardly the only problem in this country.
 
Last edited:
I understand your thinking---common to all who can't stand the Nation the Founder's set into place.

By your rational---every city like Washington DC should have its own state and so on.

I hear the same thing from Leftist talking heads on CNN and MSNBC---we need votes based on the population only (illegal or not, with no ID).


No you don't understand my thinking because you completely misunderstand my argument, are drawing absurd conclusions from it, and you apparently misunderstand the Constitutional mechanism that the founders put in place for legislative representation.


First things first. DC should not be state. Not because it's small, as you've stated, but because Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says so. Further Article 1 Section 8 essentially gives Congress responsibility to govern DC. It has nothing to do with the
size of the district. Nor do I think that every city "should have it's own state" whatever that means. How you reached that conclusion is beyond me.

As far as size goes I'm simply rebutting your assertion that land area matters. It does not. House membership is apportioned based on population, not land area. The Senators are fixed - every state regardless of land area gets the same number of Senators. No where does land area come into play.

The only thing I've noted is that the district's residents don't have effective Congressional representation, which violates at least the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter. Given that I would not oppose changing the Constitution, if need be, to allow district residents effective representation.
 
As it turns out, the notion that somehow congress will be beholden to the state in which it resides is nonsense. Congress has never given DC special treatment. Instead it uses the city as a playground to experiment on, in ways that no other population of Americans would tolerate. And, of course, few members of congress actually reside in DC. They live in Maryland or Virginia. There is just no reason at all to strip six hundred thousand Americans of the fundamental right to representation that this nation holds sacrosanct. It is a betrayal of the values of this country.

Not only are the people of DC denied representation in congress, they're also denied the real power to run their own city. Congress gets to override any law passed by the DC council. No one in this country would tolerate a complete lack of federalism, separation of powers, or checks and balances between state and federal governments of this kind. To have it exist in this country at all is un-American. The people of DC don't want to be a part of Maryland or Virginia. They have a culture all their own. It's not just about voting and congress. It's about self-governance.

It's amazing how cavalier Americans can be about oppressing their own people. And not just a few people either. DC has a higher population than Vermont and Wyoming do. The physical size of the city doesn't matter, either. This is an entire state's worth of people who are literally second class citizens. Everyone who opposes American citizens enjoying the basic rights of this country should be ashamed of themselves. It's also pathetic how often it boils down to conservatives wanting to deny representation to people who'll vote for liberals. Also Flamethrower's open racism. That's pathetic and disgusting.
 
As soon as the loyal opposition stops playing politics with American death due to terrorism, I'll consider what you say--not until.
You saw the Nation come together after 9/11/2001--not so much now .

When 9/11 happened I was eighteen almost nineteen and I was never inclined to kicking ass and taking names like other people were at the time. It was at best a search and kill mission, but everyone was overly hot headed and unreasonable to the point of absurdity that they never actually stepped back and took a breath. As you would expect the neocon douche parade took advantage of them and we found ourselves in another neocon cluster****. That isn't mentioning how scared everyone was at the time and how they were all to willing to give away their liberty for safety.
 
Last edited:
Did they? The land that forms D.C. had people living on it before D.C. was created. Did those original residents willingly give up their rights?

I'm against the idea of D.C. statehood but believe D.C. Representative in Congress should have voting rights. I'd also lean towards giving the district Senators as well

Yes, the territory cessions was authorized by the state, to which the people elected their representatives.
 
Washington DC was intended to be the seat of government for the whole country and not just the Republicans or Democrats or any other demographic. It was intended to not be a state so that no state would 'own' the Capital building, the White House, the Supreme Court Building, the Smithsonian, etc. etc. etc. If they want the people who live there to have representation, then pass a bill allowing them to register in a neighboring state and vote there. But DC itself should remain neutral and owned by us all.
 
No you don't understand my thinking because you completely misunderstand my argument, are drawing absurd conclusions from it, and you apparently misunderstand the Constitutional mechanism that the founders put in place for legislative representation.


First things first. DC should not be state. Not because it's small, as you've stated, but because Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says so. Further Article 1 Section 8 essentially gives Congress responsibility to govern DC. It has nothing to do with the
size of the district. Nor do I think that every city "should have it's own state" whatever that means. How you reached that conclusion is beyond me.

As far as size goes I'm simply rebutting your assertion that land area matters. It does not. House membership is apportioned based on population, not land area. The Senators are fixed - every state regardless of land area gets the same number of Senators. No where does land area come into play.

The only thing I've noted is that the district's residents don't have effective Congressional representation, which violates at least the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter. Given that I would not oppose changing the Constitution, if need be, to allow district residents effective representation.


With the exception of Hawaii, which is twice the size of Rhode Island, there has been no historical precedence for small states, or "city states" like DC to form and become states.

As I've already mentioned, let the current citizens of DC, not the illegals, be part of original state they were carved out from, Maryland, and vote with them. That is a change I could support.
 
No dodge at all--as all can read and decide--fair, balanced and unafraid.
I believe a companion 52nd state in Puerto Rico would be a fine Missouri Compromise.




I don't look at things as you do in terms of race with respect to Black Supremacy.
I watch all the Cables, such as Krauthammer calling Obama a "narcissist" .

I try to look at problems from all sides. There is also a phrase called, "thinking outside the box."

Thinking that race is not at least part of the reason why DC Statehood advocateswant it, is having one's head in the sand.

Only the most narrow-minded believe there is only "White Supremacy" and not "Hispanic-, Black, Native American-, or any other Supremacy."
 
How many states have a population LESS that DC? Vermont and Wyoming. So smaller population areas are indeed states.
 
Recently the Senate heard arguments for Washington DC to become the 51st state. Only two members of the Senate heard the arguments. In your opinion do you think Washington DC should become the 51st state in the Union?


Congress takes up bill to make D.C. the 51st state

If we're going to have a representative democracy, we need to do it right. That isn't happening when certain segments of the population are not being represented.
 
Only the most narrow-minded believe there is only "White Supremacy" and
not "Hispanic-, Black, Native American-, or any other Supremacy."

And I have never been one of those.
Helps to grow up with all races on Air Force bases as the brat I was.
My life was saved buy a Black Full Bird doctor when I was a baby in England--kinda changes one's outlook.

I really never knew racism until my Dad moved to an all-white town after he retired.
And continued to do Civil Service and TDYs to Vietnam at JAAP/APSA for eight more years .
 
Why would you bring up illegals?
And why is it once again that all conservatives in this thread are against statehood?

I've already offered a great Missouri Compromise with also bringing in Puerto Rico.
That's what's called thinking out of the box one mentioned, something no one will touch.
With the exception of Hawaii, which is twice the size of Rhode Island, there has been no historical precedence for small states, or "city states" like DC to form and become states.

As I've already mentioned, let the current citizens of DC, not the illegals, be part of original state they were carved out from, Maryland, and vote with them. That is a change I could support.
 
LOL

Desperate for a couple more Dems in the Senate?

I think the way revenue is confiscated by the various government entities throughout the country makes this "taxation without representation" meme a bit of a hard sell. I think there would be very little sympathy on that tactic from taxpayers around the nation.

While I may oppose such a move to add D.C., there are perhaps better arguments than this taxation thing.

I don't care who they elect, but apparently the idea of 2 more Democrats to the Senate terrifies you. BTW, the GOP could always run a candidate and actually try to win. Just spitballing here...

I am interested in the idea that they are expected to pay Federal Income Tax, follow Federal laws, and have zero input on those laws. It's about the ideals of a representative government as laid out in the founding documents of the country. They should be represented the same as every other citizen of the United States is regardless of which party wins the election. But why let ideals get in the way of partisan crap? If they were likely to vote Republican would you be all over the idea of adding the state?
 
Washington DC was intended to be the seat of government for the whole country and not just the Republicans or Democrats or any other demographic. It was intended to not be a state so that no state would 'own' the Capital building, the White House, the Supreme Court Building, the Smithsonian, etc. etc. etc. If they want the people who live there to have representation, then pass a bill allowing them to register in a neighboring state and vote there. But DC itself should remain neutral and owned by us all.

That kind of works, but I don't think the intention was for there to be much of a permanent population within DC anyway. Passing a bill having them vote in another state would have to be passed by that state, and I'm sure that Marylanders aren't exactly thrilled with the idea of non-Maryland residents hijacking their voice.

As much as I hate the idea of bringing partisanship into it, the fact is that it would probably go Democratic. Do you think the Maryland GOP wants to add 500,000 or so Democratic voters to the roll?
 
Recently the Senate heard arguments for Washington DC to become the 51st state. Only two members of the Senate heard the arguments. In your opinion do you think Washington DC should become the 51st state in the Union?


Congress takes up bill to make D.C. the 51st state



Ok, assuming that DC is like any world capital, 95% of the residents are either working for government or servicing it or servicing and supplying government workers.

That's a crap load of civil servants and hangers on, not to mention lobbyists and lawyers.

Do you really want a whole state made up of people like that?

If it's a new capital though, why not Minot, North Dakota, pretty close to the geographic center when Alaska is added. It's not very scenic but they have an air base and it's two hours away from Regina, Saskatchewan if you want a first run movie. With so little distractions and - 60 temperatures in the winter I bet a whole lot would get done.....
 
I don't care who they elect, but apparently the idea of 2 more Democrats to the Senate terrifies you. BTW, the GOP could always run a candidate and actually try to win. Just spitballing here...

I am interested in the idea that they are expected to pay Federal Income Tax, follow Federal laws, and have zero input on those laws. It's about the ideals of a representative government as laid out in the founding documents of the country. They should be represented the same as every other citizen of the United States is regardless of which party wins the election. But why let ideals get in the way of partisan crap? If they were likely to vote Republican would you be all over the idea of adding the state?

Come on R88, lighten up. A bit of sarcasm in the question about electing 2 Dems to the Senate.

The question of D.C. has been answered in terms of how that area is represented. Nothing has changed, other than some burning desire that now has become an issue. People are disenfranchised on a regular basis throughout the country.

In California they raise revenue by circumventing laws on the books by reclassifying increases as fees. For example, that's how they increased the state gasoline taxes. They cut the tax to zero, and then instituted a higher fee to replace the former tax. This got around a requirement to get voter approval for all tax increases.

Why the left appears to be running this flag up the pole based on taxation and representation seems to be a very poorly executed plan.
 
How about we not outlaw people from living in certain areas of the country and just make DC a state? Why is that such a big deal to you?

Or give them one Representative in the house.
 
Ok, assuming that DC is like any world capital, 95% of the residents are either working for government or servicing it or servicing and supplying government workers.

That's a crap load of civil servants and hangers on, not to mention lobbyists and lawyers.

Do you really want a whole state made up of people like that?

If it's a new capital though, why not Minot, North Dakota, pretty close to the geographic center when Alaska is added. It's not very scenic but they have an air base and it's two hours away from Regina, Saskatchewan if you want a first run movie. With so little distractions and - 60 temperatures in the winter I bet a whole lot would get done.....

What would you think of just integrating it into either Maryland or Virginia? That would kind of solve your problem.
 
DC should not become a state it should be given back to MD just as part of it was given back to VA.
 
I believe your goal is to dismantle the Constitution. Obviously you have no tolerance for individual liberties such as the 2nd Amendment.

I want to give Washington DC statehood, therefore I must be anti-gun. I can totally follow that logic. :roll:

Where do you get this crap?
 
I want to give Washington DC statehood, therefore I must be anti-gun. I can totally follow that logic. :roll:

Where do you get this crap?

You're probably a gay black woman also.
 
Back
Top Bottom