(11-12-2016 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Not happening now. But the Dems were foolish not to fix that when they had control. When they get control again, PR Statehood and DC statehood should be the top 2 priorities.

Suppose PR and DC were both 90% republican. Would you still push for this with equal vigor?

Red herring, Owl.

The arguments stand on their own, without your creating a distraction from the actual discussion.

(11-12-2016 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Not happening now. But the Dems were foolish not to fix that when they had control. When they get control again, PR Statehood and DC statehood should be the top 2 priorities.

Suppose PR and DC were both 90% republican. Would you still push for this with equal vigor?

Sure, why not? But I wouldn't have to, because they'd be white. And they'd both be states.

(11-12-2016 11:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Red herring, Owl.

The arguments stand on their own, without your creating a distraction from the actual discussion.

But you wouldn't be raising them if that were the case, would you?

(11-12-2016 11:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Not happening now. But the Dems were foolish not to fix that when they had control. When they get control again, PR Statehood and DC statehood should be the top 2 priorities.

Suppose PR and DC were both 90% republican. Would you still push for this with equal vigor?

Sure, why not? But I wouldn't have to, because they'd be white. And they'd both be states.

DC was white for a long time without becoming a state.

(11-12-2016 09:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bull,

Good catch. Allow me to modify my post, such that it still delivers 100% of the actual point I was making, while disabling your red herring response:

Right.... that's way more sensible than just giving the land to Montana....

Can you not see the hoops you're making yourself jump through? Now artificially partitioning Wyoming into at least three cities, creating three new city governments and a state government just so a territory of 600K people gets to be "a state"...



Ham,

- That's why DC is applying for statehood as New Columbia. Glad we clarified that
- They'd designate a capitol, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier
- They'd designate a legislature structure, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier
- They'd designate other cities, if such a petty thing actually mattered, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier
- They'd elect a governor, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier
- They'd designate a state flower, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier

Any other trivial things that wouldn't be barriers?

Its been clear to everyone for DECADES that the only reason DC isn't a state is because it has a Black majority.

Sure if you ignore the historical reason it was not a state and assume anyone who does not agree with you is a bigot... then it's totally clear.

And BTW tom, I've supported Statehood for Puerto Rico for some time.... Even though they are not white.

In fact I want to givePR an ultimatum... Shaq or get off the pot. Be a state or be an independent country not associated with the US.

(11-12-2016 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Not happening now. But the Dems were foolish not to fix that when they had control. When they get control again, PR Statehood and DC statehood should be the top 2 priorities.

Suppose PR and DC were both 90% republican. Would you still push for this with equal vigor?

Sure, why not? But I wouldn't have to, because they'd be white. And they'd both be states.

DC was white for a long time without becoming a state.

But Muh Virtue Signals!

Bison,
You asked a question. I answered it. You acted like I asked the questions. I didn't.

DC isn't a state because it was never designed to be a state. It was designed to house government. It gets funds from every other state in excess of any other state to support the government. To turn it into a state would be to put that state financially head and shoulders above every other state. The streets, museums, sewers, airports, parks, police etc are ALL subsidized in a way that no other states public services are.

It is no surprise that many people choose to live in an area where the amenities are predominantly paid for by people outside the area. It's not a state because they don't, and couldn't support themselves (in the manner to which they have become accustomed).. not to mention that you couldn't very easily separate Federal amenities from state ones... and before anyone starts, let's not pretend that the 'houses of government' even in NY, much less any other state are as big a part of the infrastructure as they are in DC

the idea that because it is now, it would continue to be in the future majority black is ridiculous.

Nobody has yet answered why we don't spin off San Francisco and create a gay state, or spin off South Texas to create a Hispanic State, or Midtown NY to create a Jewish state.

Tom, your ridiculous claim that its only 'not a state' because of racism belies the fact that it seems you just want to make sure that the predominantly white ruling class in DC has plenty of black people to serve them. All you're doing is supporting segregation.

Ham,

We're not discussing today. We're discussing what we think should be the case. So let's stop wasting yours and everyone's time with this "DC isn't a state, because it's not a state" stuff. Please.

As was already explained in the OP article, the national mall etc would not be part of the state. Just the residential areas of DC. So I don't think that argument flies either.

(11-12-2016 12:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ham,

We're not discussing today. We're discussing what we think should be the case. So let's stop wasting yours and everyone's time with this "DC isn't a state, because it's not a state" stuff. Please.

As was already explained in the OP article, the national mall etc would not be part of the state. Just the residential areas of DC. So I don't think that argument flies either.

Why can't they just reunite with Maryland?

Bump. Love the whining

(11-12-2016 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Not happening now. But the Dems were foolish not to fix that when they had control. When they get control again, PR Statehood and DC statehood should be the top 2 priorities.

Suppose PR and DC were both 90% republican. Would you still push for this with equal vigor?

Sure, why not? But I wouldn't have to, because they'd be white. And they'd both be states.

DC was white for a long time without becoming a state.

(11-11-2016 08:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 05:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bull,

DC is not a city. It's a state.

Prove me wrong.

We have 50 states and DC is not one of them

http://www.50states.com

What is the capital of the state of DC?

What does their state legislature look like?

What other cities are in the state of DC?

Who is the governor of the state of DC?

What is the state flower of DC?

I could go on for a long time

Georgetown! Booya!

(11-12-2016 09:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bull,

Good catch. Allow me to modify my post, such that it still delivers 100% of the actual point I was making, while disabling your red herring response:

Right.... that's way more sensible than just giving the land to Montana....

Can you not see the hoops you're making yourself jump through? Now artificially partitioning Wyoming into at least three cities, creating three new city governments and a state government just so a territory of 600K people gets to be "a state"...



Ham,

- That's why DC is applying for statehood as New Columbia. Glad we clarified that
- They'd designate a capitol, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier
- They'd designate a legislature structure, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier
- They'd designate other cities, if such a petty thing actually mattered, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier
- They'd elect a governor, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier
- They'd designate a state flower, I'm sure. Hardly a barrier

Any other trivial things that wouldn't be barriers?

Its been clear to everyone for DECADES that the only reason DC isn't a state is because it has a Black majority.

(11-12-2016 12:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ham,

We're not discussing today. We're discussing what we think should be the case. So let's stop wasting yours and everyone's time with this "DC isn't a state, because it's not a state" stuff. Please.

As was already explained in the OP article, the national mall etc would not be part of the state. Just the residential areas of DC. So I don't think that argument flies either.

So how would you apportion the DC Metro or the DC sewers or the DC roads or the DC Airport or DC Police or DC Fire between 'government use' and public use? Those are mostly funded right now by FEDERAL dollars, meaning they come from outside the district. While other states have arguably the same issue, we're talking 90%/10% in DC vs 10%/90% in any other state.

I think it would be impossible to in any way 'fairly' untangle 200+ years of comingling of public and private enterprise in the district. You'd have to have some 20+ year plan to do so... and that would be very expensive.

I don't fundamentally have a problem with DC becoming a state... It really wouldn't change anything in the electoral college because as a state, they wouldn't have more than 3 electors anyway, which is what they have... but it WOULD potentially change the CURRENT balcance in the Senate and to a lesser degree, the house.... more I have a problem with the argument that it is now and should/would somehow remain a 'black' state. In the long run one of two things would happen....

If you DID set up some means where it would remain 'black', I think you'd ABSOLUTELY have Native Americans wanting the same thing, and then perhaps Jews and Mexicans or Asians or gays or the disabled or star bellied sneeches etc etc etc... and if you didn't, by the time it became a reality, I suspect that 'the wealthy' (of any race, but obviously skewing white) would simply price the poor and middle class (of any race, but currently skewing black) OUT of DC because they could wield FAR more power if they could directly elect congressmen.

Heck, you'd see WalMart or GE or the Koch Brothers (or the Chinese) buy the state.

Buying 50% of the homes (so as to 'control' 50% of the votes) would be a far better investment than having to 'buy' 2 congressmen every election. One is an actual investment with perpetual intrinsic value and the other is more of an annual expense.

The reason DC isn't a state is because DC isn't a state. Not rocket science.

"Buying 50% of the homes (so as to 'control' 50% of the votes) would be a far better investment than having to 'buy' 2 congressmen every election."

So why don't they do it in Wyoming, now. It would be far, far, far cheaper than doing it in New Columbia.

(11-14-2016 04:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Buying 50% of the homes (so as to 'control' 50% of the votes) would be a far better investment than having to 'buy' 2 congressmen every election."

So why don't they do it in Wyoming, now. It would be far, far, far cheaper than doing it in New Columbia.

"New Columbia" doesn't exist. Let. It. Go.

(11-14-2016 04:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Buying 50% of the homes (so as to 'control' 50% of the votes) would be a far better investment than having to 'buy' 2 congressmen every election."

So why don't they do it in Wyoming, now. It would be far, far, far cheaper than doing it in New Columbia.

Not if you include the cost of all those other things. Roads and Airports and Water ans Sewers in Wyoming cost the local taxpayers a lot more than in DC cost the local taxpayers.

and not if you include all the other land you'd have to buy to keep people from moving in.

I suspect the cost of all the residential land in Wyoming DWARFS the cost of all the 'residential' land in DC.