“House approves statehood for DC in 232-180 vote“

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by archives, Jun 26, 2020.

  1. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, my friend. You gotta give if ya wanna get. I propose that the new state be named “Wallowa”, and it’s capitol to be Baker City.
     
  2. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    never said they weren’t

    i do too...and understand the important o aspect of the federal district

    they are just as equal to me and are welcome to make the choice i did
     
  3. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we do? when was the vote? what where the results?

    not according to the constitution.

    sure there is. we already ceded part of dc back to va
     
  4. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @WillReadmore ”Wallowa” is derived from the Nez Perce meaning “winding water”.

    Nice, huh?
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Baker City is where my forebears stopped in 1849 to decide whether to risk barging down the Columbia river or to take the safer but far more arduous route over the Cascades. They went over the pass and staked out a donation land claim that today would be in Beaverton, OR. Those taking the river tended to have it easier - until the untamed rapids flipped barges, etc. Baker City was the decision point. There is a really great museum there.

    Why do you think those in DC can not be won over by Republicans? What is it about Republicanism that is so lame that it has to be PROTECTED as you claim?

    Besides, WA has growing Democratic influence in Spokane, Yakima and other places.

    ==> If you want more Republicans, how about coming up with policy that wins more votes???

    Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What America stands for applies to ALL Americans.

    This idea that you get American rights if you live in the right place is no different from the idea that you get rights if you have the correct religion or skin color.

    Your strange idea just doesn't have anything to do with what we stand for.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2020
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, you've got no defense for your first two ideas.

    As for the third, you're making a common assumption that turns out to be false. Federal laws have changed since the last time around. You can find this out easily on the internet, because recession is a real issue, it has been examined.

    You are aguing by hoping that others are too lazy or uninterested to look into the topic.
     
  8. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's interesting family history, Will. My wife's great grandparents settled in Pendleton, OR, some time in the 1800s. Came over in covered wagons. The extended family still lives there to this day.

    I'm an independent, Will, and in many ways, Republicanism is lame. But so is the other side for reasons amply explained on this site, about which I need not insult your intelligence by explaining to you.

    I think Trump's problem is his personality, not his policies. Oh sure, the left doesn't like his policies, but they wouldn't like any Republican's policies, just as Republicans wouldn't like the left's policies. The election coming up is up to independents and swing voters, and, in my opinion, too many of those voters simply have "Trump fatigue" over his personality. But if you were to encase his policies in a likeable person, I think he would win handily in November. But he is what he is, and I think he will lose.

    Coming back to the DC question, don't you think it is just a little bit disingenuous to seek statehood for the unrepresented denizens of DC, but not for the under represented voters of eastern WA, eastern OR, and northern CA? They may be able to vote a few representatives into the House, but they have no Governor and no Senators representing them. And yet you want to give all of that to what amounts to one city. I think I smell political advantage in that contradiction.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are real problems all through that.

    First, let's remember that rights do not get granted or respected on the basis of whether the people are more open to the arguments of one political party. That's about as crazy as imaginable. It's about the same as suggesting rights be granted on the basis of religion or skin color. This whole direction is absolutely counter to what America stands for. Let's remember parties are there to serve the population. The idea of populations serving parties is just backwards.

    Next, your comments about CA are just plain wrong. CA gave us Nixon, Reagan, Swartzenegger and other leaders that were very much NOT Democrats.

    And, the response of Republicans has been to attempt to make California out to be a sick joke through constant attacks while specifically ignoring CA issues. The Trump media campaign has had NOTHING to do with leading a nation where California is an important contributor.

    You whine about CA drifting farher away from its Republican roots - but that drift has been an OBJECTIVE.

    Next, those who want to divide CA have had purely partisan objectives.

    They want to isolate the majority of the population while creating low population states that have additional representation in the Senate and the elecoral college - representation that is even more grossly out of line with population than it already is. That IS how the elecctoral college was designed, but that is not an excuse for making it even more unrepresentative of the American population.

    You want to create more Wyomings - tiny states with FAR more federal representation per person than those states that contribute the most to our economy. And, that is not an acceptable direcion.

    Finally YOU promote the idea of leveraging more unequal representation in this horse trade of yours. But, making DC a state is a matter of confering greater equality - of confering rights that America stands for as fundamental. That's not something that requires a trade - especially one that leads to further inequality.

    Remember that YOU are the one attempting to win partisan electoral advantage, as statehood for DC would NOT change representation in the electoral college.

    Sorry. I have no respect for what you are attempting to engineer. It's just more pure partisan BS.
     
  10. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    huh? they are questions, no ideas

    and when did the constitution change?
     
  11. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    never said it didn’t

    well we changed the constitution. for sex and skin color we haven’t for dc
     
  12. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I always respect when a poster takes the time to respond with some time and thought.

    That said, Will, the vote in the House was completely partisan. This is not about granting rights; this is purely political. You cannot convince me otherwise. So if we are to grant one city statehood for partisan political reasons, then it seems perfectly fair that we do something equitable for another group of people on the other side of the political divide.

    Or, we just drop the idea altogether.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not even SLIGHTLY.

    Let's remember that rights do not get granted or respected on the basis of whether the people are more open to the arguments of one political party.

    And, your comments about CA are just plain wrong. CA gave us Nixon, Reagan, Swartzenegger and other leaders that were very much NOT Democrats.

    And, the response of Republicans has been to attempt to make California out to be a sick joke through constant attacks while specifically ignoring CA issues and its major strengths.

    Yes. Republicans will lose influence in CA over that.

    What the HELL do Republicnas think THAT is going to win them???

    Those who want to divide CA have had purely partisan objectives.

    They want to isolate the majority of the population while creating low population states that have additional representation in the Senate and the elecoral college - representation that is even more grossly out of line with population than it already is. That IS how the elecctoral college was designed, but that is not an excuse for making it even more unrepresentative of the American population.

    What you are proposing would have an impact on the electoral college.

    Making DC a state would NOT do that.

    Sorry. I don't have respect for what you are attempting to engineer. It's just more partisan assault. If you want Republicans to have more appeal in the states you mention, they try showing respect for the issues important to these people.

    And, let's stop denying representation and the rights of statehood to those in DC.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2020
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??

    What change do you claim that Ireferenced?
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But not citizens of a State, they choose to live in a federal district.
     
  16. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Those people who want to divide CA do have partisan reasons. So do the Democrats in the House who voted for DC statehood. If DC was an overwhelmingly Republican bastion, they would never have voted for the idea.

    DC already gets 3 electoral votes, and they have a non-voting representative to Congress (who may vote on committees). This "DC statehood" push is a nakedly political ploy to gain two Democratic senators and a fully voting representative in the House. Think about that! 2 Senators to represent one city. That is absurd!

    A less absurd idea would be to incorporate DC into either Maryland or Virginia, and then DC residents would be fully represented.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And, your argument is preposterously partisan and nothing more.

    There are 12 House members from Pacific Coast states. And, that is because Republicans have not managed to attract the populace to its ideas.

    That is NOT a justification for engineering more Republican power for them.

    If Republicans want more west coast House members, they need to stop pitching CA as a disgusting backwater and attacking issues that are serious in that and other west coast states.

    Trump does the exact opposite - threatening CA and other states, etc. His sales pitch to CA is FU and the horse you rode in on. Trump managed to help Orange County, one of the most conservative enclaves in CA, to essentailly switch parties.

    YES - CA has less represntation now, becuase Republicans pushe the people to switch parties.

    You don't get to be butt hurt over that.

    And, this issue is IRRELEVANT to the issue of allowing DC to have federal level representation as well as having the rights of states.
     
  18. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your claim that folks in the federal districts rights are being abused
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now, you're arguing against yourself.

    Yes - DC statehood doesn't give them more electors.

    And, that IS what your nonsensical suggestion DOES do.

    You aren't following along on the DC issue - probably because you don't actually care.

    This thread has addressed the problems with usine federal power to force MD to take DC - since MD citizens and their elected office holders oppose that direction. Plus, there have been federal law changes that would block giving DC to Maryland. A hunk of DC was given toe Virginia, but that was before the changes in federal law.

    ALL those in CA, OR and WA have representation.

    If you want more representation, then convince voters that Republicans would improve their lives or the standing of America in some way.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While absolutely true, that is not a change.

    You claimed I said something about a "change" that was at some time made to the constitution.
     
  21. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you did there was a changes to the constitution to ensure everyone that’s a citizen of a state has the same rights.

    the federal govt is made up of the states, hence why the federal govt doesn’t have its own rep in the federal govt. if you read some of our founding documents, federalist 43 by madison in particular, you’d see why
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2020
  22. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Will, my suggestion of adding a western state was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The reason I did it was to bring out the partisan nature of the DC statehood push. It's a raw partisan political power play, that's all. What I did was suggest a raw counter partisan political power play, and you strongly opposed it, proving my point.
     
  23. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What “false premise” ? It’s a fact that less and less people have control over more and more very day. This was fine when it was 13 colonies with similar population densities.

    And yes, we have a “democratic republic”. You may want to read up on the great compromise. As part of the great compromise which created the senate, they gave the “lower house” (The HOR) equal votes, BUT, they also wanted those senators “elected” by each states representatives in the HOR. What they wanted was the House members elected by the people, and then the Senators elected by the HOR. That changed, and now you have unequal representation.

    “One man, one vote” ? I guess we get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution we like then?i
     
  24. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So as long as republicans maintain unequal power, thats OK ?
     
  25. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,804
    Likes Received:
    9,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again....without a vote!
     
    WillReadmore likes this.

Share This Page