• 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
52nd perhaps. Israel is in line in front of them.
 
PR's vote overwhelmingly with liberals and democrats---so I'm sure you'd be all for it.

Puerto Rico, I feel, would be more of a liability than an asset. More Federal aid coming in than jobs and production coming out. Let them stay a territory like the Virgin Islands and Guam.

By that metric there are a significant numbers of red states who deserve to lose the privilege of being a state and become relegated to territorial status. Just sayin'
 
PR's vote overwhelmingly with liberals and democrats---so I'm sure you'd be all for it.
.

That's what your problem with it is. Of course if the Republicans decided it was worth their time to have an electable candidate....They definitely won't win if they don't try.
 
Perhaps the OP and many of his advocates are Black Supremacists that know DC is majority Black and very liberal and won't admit the very reason they are wanting statehood is to increase (unfairly) Black Power?

Good job, you just proved his point.
 
They're citizens of the United States of America.

and they knew that they weren't going to have representation since 1801, as that's what happens during cession. Its not a shock when someone lives or moves to DC, its common knowledge.

But for some reason, people have lived there for 200 years, and the population continues to grow.
 
By that metric there are a significant numbers of red states who deserve to lose the privilege of being a state and become relegated to territorial status. Just sayin'

How, by any metric would the US benefit, economically, culturally or otherwise by allowing Puerto Rico in as a state?

Was is your end goal here?
 
I have another question: whether should Ukraine become 51`st state? Otherwise I do not understand why our government is so much involved into the internal affairs of a distant and alien Slavic country
 
and they knew that they weren't going to have representation since 1801, as that's what happens during cession. Its not a shock when someone lives or moves to DC, its common knowledge.

But for some reason, people have lived there for 200 years, and the population continues to grow.

There's a lot of DC residents who don't have the resources to move out, but that's not really the road I want to go down.

The basic point is that you don't get relegated to less rights than everyone else because of where you live. The whole thing, as we've seen again and again in this thread, is that you can't give people rights and representation because they might vote a way you don't like.
 
How, by any metric would the US benefit, economically, culturally or otherwise by allowing Puerto Rico in as a state?

Was is your end goal here?

What's the benefit to allowing New Mexico to stay?
 
What's the benefit to allowing New Mexico to stay?

New Mexico is an important trade and access route. Travelers going West would have to drive hundreds of miles out of the way if New Mexico was part of Aztlan (greater Mexico).

The narcotics industry, such an important part of any liberal-Democrat inner city stronghold, would benefit most with much improved distribution speeds with New Mexico as part of Aztlan.
 
There's a lot of DC residents who don't have the resources to move out, but that's not really the road I want to go down.

The basic point is that you don't get relegated to less rights than everyone else because of where you live. The whole thing, as we've seen again and again in this thread, is that you can't give people rights and representation because they might vote a way you don't like.

The suggestion that DC isn't going to be a state because of a perceived voting pattern was put forth by someone arguing for statehood.

DC ceased to be a represented location when the existing population's representatives agreed to cession. Its not like we are talking about something new.....this "issue" is freaking 200 years old! If the populace today wants representation, then they should start he process to be re-absorbed by Virginia and Maryland.
 
And with that you smear all on the right with the usual cries of racism and fear of libruls. Nice piece of work, there.

I was referring to some of the posts on this thread which used knee jerk (You can't change the Constitution!) and racist arguments for opposing DC statehood, not talking about "all on the right.". Here's the most recent racist one:

That's all we need two crackhead Senators and a couple of crackhead Congressmen.

BTW: Of the 645,000 DC residents, how many actually pay individual income taxes ?

Here's a fear of "libruls" post.

PR's vote overwhelmingly with liberals and democrats---so I'm sure you'd be all for it.......
 
And why is it necessary that they have representation?

Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.."

which includes this complaint about the British rule
"imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:.."

14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....

15th Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
 
And why is it necessary that they have representation?

Representation is one of the foundations of this country. It was the lack of representation and a voice that was a main reason for the American Revolution. Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?
 
I was referring to some of the posts on this thread which used knee jerk (You can't change the Constitution!) and racist arguments for opposing DC statehood, not talking about "all on the right.". Here's the most recent racist one:



Here's a fear of "libruls" post.

Racist arguments ?

The former Mayor of D.C. the crackhead Marion Barry was busted and convicted for smoking crack and after getting out of the joint (no pun intended) was again elected as Mayor of D.C. by the people of that city where Congressmen get mugged at night.

Under all of that facade of marble in the D.C. it's third world.

If it were Tommy Chong who was elected Mayor after getting out of the joint after his conviction for manufacturing bongs, I would still would have posted the same thing.

Side drift:
I still don't understand why the G.W. Bush's DOJ went after Tommy ??? It had to be one of the episodes of "That 70's Show" that pissed off some one in the Bush administration. ???

I digress.

It's obvious you live in a black and white world.
 
Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.."

which includes this complaint about the British rule
"imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:.."

14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....

15th Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

None of those Amendments has anything to do with DC.

The DoI is not law.

Representation is one of the foundations of this country. It was the lack of representation and a voice that was a main reason for the American Revolution. Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?

Yes I have. I do not condone treason.
 
I was referring to some of the posts on this thread which used knee jerk (You can't change the Constitution!) and racist arguments for opposing DC statehood, not talking about "all on the right.". Here's the most recent racist one:



Here's a fear of "libruls" post.

Neither of those posts demonstrate much more than dysfunctional nature of the district, in spite of what you think you see. DC did have a crackhead mayor. And don't tell me you would support statehood yourself if the district was overwhelmingly right-leaning. You wouldn't.
 
Absolutely not. Washington DC is the seat of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not a state. No individual was forced to make Washington DC their home, and by making it their home they're doing so with full understanding that it is not a state.

If this is such a huge issue then you slice DC in a rough diagnol, incorporating the top half into Maryland and the bottom half into Virginia. You carve out a small part of the middle with the Capital Building and some other near by things as being "Washington DC" and you disallow any residential space within that portion.

Alternatively, if you don't want to literally incorporate DC into those areas, give the residents of those areas voting rights in Federal elections with said states. So those in the bottom half of that suggested cut in DC would cast votes (and count for census numbers) with regards to Virginia's Senators and Congressman. Those in the top half of the suggested cut would do the same for Maryland's politicians.

This way they DO have representation they've cast votes for in the Congress and Senate, but Washington DC remains a neutral seat of government as opposed to an co-equal state that happens to have the capital within it.

But DC absolutely should not become its own individual state.
 
Last edited:
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?

Why wouldn't DC resident vote for the representative in the state where their house used to belong?

Wouldn't that be Virginia?
 
No but I would support DC residents the option of choosing between being legal citizens of Virginia, Maryland or the state of their birth for the purposes of voting for potus, us senators and governor.

But as has already been noted, that would require consent of the state they do not reside in. Or it should. If the federal government assumes power to assign people to a state for purposes of voting, then it is all over for us as a representative republic. The federal government could gerrymand the vote anyway they wanted it to go.

People who live in DC do so knowing they are in an area designated for the seat of government for ALL the people and that they are not a state and are not entitled to have federal representatives. If that is a big deal to them, then they can move minutes away to Maryland or Virginia. Washington DC shouldn't even be a city, much less a state.
 
Back
Top Bottom