(11-11-2016 01:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One thing I noticed from the first few pages (stopped after that) was a very odd sentiment that seems to be the consensus: a city of 670k people does not deserve two senators, but a state of 670k people does.

Yes a state of 100,000 square miles is somewhat different than a city of 68 square miles. the smallest state, Rhode Island, is 23 times the land mas of DC.

It's not about the population. I would be against a city of three million being it's own state. It's like pornography....

What is it? I can't clearly define it but I know it when I see it and one city is not a state.

Quote:So by definition, deserving senators has nothing to do with population, it would seem.

Well..



That *IS* what the constitution says. The population of Georgia was around 25K when the Constitution was Ratified and the population of Virginia was about a half a million.

Quote:Falls right in line with my pet project as of this week: if every American receives the same vote

And... *THAT* is where your project falls apart. The base assumption that every person gets a vote is a component of pure democracies, not democratic republics.

I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me which one we live in.

Quote:how can we marginalize a group of voters simply because they decided to live close together instead of living spread apart??

Like I said, it's not marginalization, it's the structure of the government which formed this nation. In order to call it marginalization one must ignore that fact.

49R,

- "This all is based on the folly that Senators were meant to represent people directly, they are not. They represent the interests of their respective states."

So then make DC a state. Problem solved.

Ah ... but you say they don't qualify to be a state. Because .......... I think you left that part out.



- "Every citizen has the right to have an equal vote, within their state."

So you do in fact reject that every American should be given an equal vote.

(11-11-2016 02:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 01:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One thing I noticed from the first few pages (stopped after that) was a very odd sentiment that seems to be the consensus: a city of 670k people does not deserve two senators, but a state of 670k people does.

Yes a state of 100,000 square miles is somewhat different than a city of 68 square miles. the smallest state, Rhode Island, is 23 times the land mas of DC.

It's not about the population. I would be against a city of three million being it's own state. It's like pornography....

What is it? I can't clearly define it but I know it when I see it and one city is not a state.

Quote:So by definition, deserving senators has nothing to do with population, it would seem.

Well..



That *IS* what the constitution says. The population of Georgia was around 25K when the Constitution was Ratified and the population of Virginia was about a half a million.

Quote:Falls right in line with my pet project as of this week: if every American receives the same vote

And... *THAT* is where your project falls apart. The base assumption that every person gets a vote is a component of pure democracies, not democratic republics.

I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me which one we live in.

Quote:how can we marginalize a group of voters simply because they decided to live close together instead of living spread apart??

Like I said, it's not marginalization, it's the structure of the government which formed this nation. In order to call it marginalization one must ignore that fact.

You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Just like in every Black majority city in Michigan too. Black led governments aren't allowed to actually wield any power. White Michigan cites, they can govern. Black majority ones...nope...You guys remind me of Maduro..when the opposition wins an election, you just remove all power from that office. Just like you guys did with HB2 to remove all power from the local city councils to prevent massive discrimination against LGBT people.

Bull,

In other words, the default reply seems to be:

"it's too difficult to think of a reply to your logical argument, so I'm just going to hide behind the constitution"

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Why say anything at all. If you've taught us anything its that you get to tell us what's in our hearts, what's in our minds, who's "really" black, who's .....

Quote:Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Many on this thread have offered a sensible compromise... Make it part of Maryland, outside of the Mall...

But you're not interested in agreement, you're interested in demonizing others.

(11-11-2016 02:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Why say anything at all. If you've taught us anything its that you get to tell us what's in our hearts, what's in our minds, who's "really" black, who's .....

Quote:Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Many on this thread have offered a sensible compromise... Make it part of Maryland, outside of the Mall...

But you're not interested in agreement, you're interested in demonizing others.

Tom you are the only one trying to make this about race.

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 01:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One thing I noticed from the first few pages (stopped after that) was a very odd sentiment that seems to be the consensus: a city of 670k people does not deserve two senators, but a state of 670k people does.

Yes a state of 100,000 square miles is somewhat different than a city of 68 square miles. the smallest state, Rhode Island, is 23 times the land mas of DC.

It's not about the population. I would be against a city of three million being it's own state. It's like pornography....

What is it? I can't clearly define it but I know it when I see it and one city is not a state.

Quote:So by definition, deserving senators has nothing to do with population, it would seem.

Well..



That *IS* what the constitution says. The population of Georgia was around 25K when the Constitution was Ratified and the population of Virginia was about a half a million.

Quote:Falls right in line with my pet project as of this week: if every American receives the same vote

And... *THAT* is where your project falls apart. The base assumption that every person gets a vote is a component of pure democracies, not democratic republics.

I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me which one we live in.

Quote:how can we marginalize a group of voters simply because they decided to live close together instead of living spread apart??

Like I said, it's not marginalization, it's the structure of the government which formed this nation. In order to call it marginalization one must ignore that fact.

You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Just like in every Black majority city in Michigan too. Black led governments aren't allowed to actually wield any power. White Michigan cites, they can govern. Black majority ones...nope...You guys remind me of Maduro..when the opposition wins an election, you just remove all power from that office. Just like you guys did with HB2 to remove all power from the local city councils to prevent massive discrimination against LGBT people.

I do not know the answer but I do have my suspicions. Where does the bulk of the DC operating budget come from? And in the last 100 years the Congress has been controlled by your beloved Democrats far more than by your reviled Republicans. Also if my idea came to be DC would become an independent city under the laws of the state of Maryland. Free at last! Free at last!!

(11-11-2016 02:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Why say anything at all. If you've taught us anything its that you get to tell us what's in our hearts, what's in our minds, who's "really" black, who's .....

Quote:Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Many on this thread have offered a sensible compromise... Make it part of Maryland, outside of the Mall...

But you're not interested in agreement, you're interested in demonizing others.

I'm interested in DC being a state. The fit the criteria for being a state. They have more people than lily white states, but still no vote....

Because they're black.

Why can't Black people have a state where they are the majority? Why do you insist that they have to be merged in with a white state?

(11-11-2016 02:52 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 01:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One thing I noticed from the first few pages (stopped after that) was a very odd sentiment that seems to be the consensus: a city of 670k people does not deserve two senators, but a state of 670k people does.

Yes a state of 100,000 square miles is somewhat different than a city of 68 square miles. the smallest state, Rhode Island, is 23 times the land mas of DC.

It's not about the population. I would be against a city of three million being it's own state. It's like pornography....

What is it? I can't clearly define it but I know it when I see it and one city is not a state.

Quote:So by definition, deserving senators has nothing to do with population, it would seem.

Well..



That *IS* what the constitution says. The population of Georgia was around 25K when the Constitution was Ratified and the population of Virginia was about a half a million.

Quote:Falls right in line with my pet project as of this week: if every American receives the same vote

And... *THAT* is where your project falls apart. The base assumption that every person gets a vote is a component of pure democracies, not democratic republics.

I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me which one we live in.

Quote:how can we marginalize a group of voters simply because they decided to live close together instead of living spread apart??

Like I said, it's not marginalization, it's the structure of the government which formed this nation. In order to call it marginalization one must ignore that fact.

You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Just like in every Black majority city in Michigan too. Black led governments aren't allowed to actually wield any power. White Michigan cites, they can govern. Black majority ones...nope...You guys remind me of Maduro..when the opposition wins an election, you just remove all power from that office. Just like you guys did with HB2 to remove all power from the local city councils to prevent massive discrimination against LGBT people.

I do not know the answer but I do have my suspicions. Where does the bulk of the DC operating budget come from? And in the last 100 years the Congress has been controlled by your beloved Democrats far more than by your reviled Republicans. Also if my idea came to be DC would become an independent city under the laws of the state of Maryland. Free at last! Free at last!!

So, I suppose you're a no on Black people getting a majority state. They can only vote for Senate if their vote is diluted by a white majority.

(11-11-2016 02:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Why say anything at all. If you've taught us anything its that you get to tell us what's in our hearts, what's in our minds, who's "really" black, who's .....

Quote:Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Many on this thread have offered a sensible compromise... Make it part of Maryland, outside of the Mall...

But you're not interested in agreement, you're interested in demonizing others.

I'm interested in DC being a state. The fit the criteria for being a state. They have more people than lily white states, but still no vote....

Because they're black.

Why can't Black people have a state where they are the majority? Why do you insist that they have to be merged in with a white state?

If DC were returned to Maryland then the black population there would be around 40%. And with liberals voting for anyone with a "D" after their name a black could easily win a Senate seat in Maryland.

(11-11-2016 02:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  49R,

- "This all is based on the folly that Senators were meant to represent people directly, they are not. They represent the interests of their respective states."

So then make DC a state. Problem solved.

Ah ... but you say they don't qualify to be a state. Because .......... I think you left that part out.

Allow DC residents to vote as part of Maryland, problem solved much easier and less costly.

The bottom line is they don't deserve to be their own state because the Congress doesn't deem them worthy of Statehood, and probably never will. Especially when there is the simpler prospect and existing precedent of reuniting with the existing state they were carved out from in the first place.

(11-11-2016 02:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  - "Every citizen has the right to have an equal vote, within their state."

So you do in fact reject that every American should be given an equal vote.

Nation wide? Yes!

They are citizens of their states FIRST and must deal within their state's voting system or leave that state for a state with more attractive voting situations for them.

There is no NATIONAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT! Never has been!

- So your assumption that every vote is equal nationwide has never been the case for President.

There are 50 DIFFERENT STATE ELECTIONS TO ELECT ELECTORS, they are in fact the ONLY PEOPLE who can vote for PRESIDENT of THE UNITED STATES.

- The ELECTORS all have equal votes. It's just like the House of Representatives that way.

Tom, what would make DC statehood advantageous to the rest of the US?

(11-11-2016 02:55 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Why say anything at all. If you've taught us anything its that you get to tell us what's in our hearts, what's in our minds, who's "really" black, who's .....

Quote:Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Many on this thread have offered a sensible compromise... Make it part of Maryland, outside of the Mall...

But you're not interested in agreement, you're interested in demonizing others.

I'm interested in DC being a state. The fit the criteria for being a state. They have more people than lily white states, but still no vote....

Because they're black.

Why can't Black people have a state where they are the majority? Why do you insist that they have to be merged in with a white state?

If DC were returned to Maryland then the black population there would be around 40%.

Not a majority. Actually it would be a bit less than that...around 35 percent. About the same as Mississippi. Still waiting for the Black supported Senate candidate in Mississippi to get elected.

(11-11-2016 02:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm interested in DC being a state. The fit the criteria for being a state. They have more people than lily white states, but still no vote....

1 State Tom... They have a greater population than *1* state. And that's the *ONLY* Criteria they meet. They are 4% the size of the smallest state in the union. And that are smaller in population and area than *BROOKLYN*

BTW in terms of area they are .006% the size of that *1* state which has a slightly smaller populatuion.

Quote:Because they're black.

Quote:Why can't Black people have a state where they are the majority? Why do you insist that they have to be merged in with a white state?

We did not pick "a white state" we picked a state that borders them because, hint, thats where the land was originally ceded from.

(11-11-2016 02:57 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Tom, what would make DC statehood advantageous to the rest of the US?

Not discriminating against voters simply because they're black for one

(11-11-2016 02:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:52 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 01:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One thing I noticed from the first few pages (stopped after that) was a very odd sentiment that seems to be the consensus: a city of 670k people does not deserve two senators, but a state of 670k people does.

Yes a state of 100,000 square miles is somewhat different than a city of 68 square miles. the smallest state, Rhode Island, is 23 times the land mas of DC.

It's not about the population. I would be against a city of three million being it's own state. It's like pornography....

What is it? I can't clearly define it but I know it when I see it and one city is not a state.

Quote:So by definition, deserving senators has nothing to do with population, it would seem.

Well..



That *IS* what the constitution says. The population of Georgia was around 25K when the Constitution was Ratified and the population of Virginia was about a half a million.

Quote:Falls right in line with my pet project as of this week: if every American receives the same vote

And... *THAT* is where your project falls apart. The base assumption that every person gets a vote is a component of pure democracies, not democratic republics.

I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me which one we live in.

Quote:how can we marginalize a group of voters simply because they decided to live close together instead of living spread apart??

Like I said, it's not marginalization, it's the structure of the government which formed this nation. In order to call it marginalization one must ignore that fact.

You guys don't need to pretend and come up with ridiculous reasons why you oppose DC statehood. Just admit the obvious

DC doesn't get to vote for Senate because its' voters are mostly Black.

Its not like y'all have a problem with the US Congress telling the DC government how to run their city, in direct violation of the votes of the elected representatives of that city.

Just like in every Black majority city in Michigan too. Black led governments aren't allowed to actually wield any power. White Michigan cites, they can govern. Black majority ones...nope...You guys remind me of Maduro..when the opposition wins an election, you just remove all power from that office. Just like you guys did with HB2 to remove all power from the local city councils to prevent massive discrimination against LGBT people.

I do not know the answer but I do have my suspicions. Where does the bulk of the DC operating budget come from? And in the last 100 years the Congress has been controlled by your beloved Democrats far more than by your reviled Republicans. Also if my idea came to be DC would become an independent city under the laws of the state of Maryland. Free at last! Free at last!!

So, I suppose you're a no on Black people getting a majority state. They can only vote for Senate if their vote is diluted by a white majority.

I see you are back on that "all black people think alike on every " thing again. All cloned from the same DNA. It is as insulting to them here on page 3 as it was earlier.

(11-11-2016 02:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:57 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Tom, what would make DC statehood advantageous to the rest of the US?

Not discriminating against voters simply because they're black for one

Congress would first make you prove your claim that blacks are discriminated against in the voting process. Next they would ask you how that benefits the rest of the states since that is part of the process.

Tom sees himself as a Moses like figure. Always talking about "his people ".
And Gerrymandering to protect the colored folks.

49R,

So again, basically you're just defaulting back to "because that's not what the constitution says". You're not actually giving an argument that justifies why what the constitution says is valid or correct.

(11-11-2016 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  49R,

So again, basically you're just defaulting back to "because that's not what the constitution says". You're not actually giving an argument that justifies why what the constitution says is valid or correct.

Just because you do not like the answer, doesn't make you right and others wrong. Just makes you oblivious to facts.