(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I disagree. Dallas/Fort Worth has considered itself part of Texas and Texas has considered Dallas/Forth Worth to be a part of Texas for over 150 years. For over 150 years Dallas/Forth Worth has been subject to laws enacted by the Texas legislature. At no point in the last 200 years has DC considered itself to be part of any state or subject to the laws of any state, including Maryland. At no point in recent history has DC considered itself to be part of Maryland or Virginia, notwithstanding that the original land for DC was carved out of those states.

Which to me only demonstrates that DC owes its existence to the Federal Government rather than as an independent state.

Somehow, DC has gotten trillions in Federal support... I suspect it is the largest 'receiver' of Federal dollars per Area or Population over the centuries despite 'no representation'. I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek because 535 Congressmen 'support' it... at least somewhat. Certainly more than say, a Vermont Senator or House member supports infrastructure improvements in Idaho.

What is different about DC in 2020 than in 1920 or 1820 that it now needs representation that it never before had? The district was set up 'knowing' what it would become.... as it always has been.

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  If you are going to spew garbage like this, am I allowed to be a true low level soldier, deceived by my party masters, and start calling you a trumpbot? Just curious.

Here I was trying to nice, and not include you in the Machiavellian machinations of your party elite. I think the movers and shakers have very different goals and motivations than the followers. I didn't realize you were a mover/shaker. I thought you were just a follower, hence the term "soldier ant", one who marches in lockstep to the commands of others. It's like the difference between Hitler and the deluded Germans who voted him in. I want to attribute purer altruistic motives to the lower level, and not tar the whole party because the motivations of the top people. But as you wish, I will regard you as a co-conspirator with the rest of the elite.

You are allowed to to do as you want for now. If you want to be deceived, you are allowed to be deceived. Maybe not so much in 2050, if you are successful in getting what you want now. But it won't be conservatives you will have to ask permission from then.

Another strong ad from the tribalist-resistant Republicans.

Loading may require visiting Twitter, as Twitter has flagged this as potentially sensitive.

(07-08-2020 11:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Because you don't fundamentally appreciate what an American state is. You seem to think it is a French department. It is not.

I don't know what a French department is. Accordingly, I promise you that I do not think US states are French department's (laughing at my own ignorance on this one)

(07-08-2020 11:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  ... you are not citing valid arguments for why it shouldn't be a state now.

Yes we are. You just don't agree with them.

I wasn't quite clear enough. I agree that some of the arguments y'all are making have validity, but I believe a couple of the more historically-based arguments are no longer persuasive or valid.

(07-08-2020 11:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Then you misunderstand the concern, perhaps not completely, but significantly. As has been explained, it is not merely Congress's de jure authority that makes DC incapable of separate sovereignty from the national government.

Has anyone really dug into this argument? It seems to be a presumption on your part but you haven't really explained why. Getting back to one of your posts from a few days ago:

(07-06-2020 03:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  For Pete's sake, a state is a unitary entity; its subdivisions have no more sovereignty than administrative departments. Moreover, no state vests representational rights in its political subdivisions as entities (in fact, the Supreme Court has made it illegal to do so).

The United States is entirely different. It is not at all just a great big state; it is a union of distinct sovereigns. And, because those constituent members of the union are sovereigns, they expressly have representational rights as members, not merely as lumps of residents. An entity that is not and cannot be substantively sovereign, that is in fact virtually owned by the national sovereign, is not in any political sense like the others.

Didn't we all learn these things in middle school?

First, I have one kid who finished middle school a year ago and another who is between 6th and 7th grades right now. I think I can speak authoritatively that this is not the kind of thing they learned at their middle school, certainly not this degree of detail. I am certain the same is true for my middle school experience.

Second, you keep arguing that that DC is "[a]n entity that is not and cannot be substantively sovereign, that is in fact virtually owned by the national sovereign...." What is your argument that DC "cannot" be substantively sovereign from the federal government? I don't follow that line of thinking at all. Why not? That gets back the hyperbolic point i keep making about about federalism collapsing in on itself like a black hole if DC becomes a state. You keep saying it doesn't work with DC and I keep asking why and the only answer I can discern from your responses is "because it can't!"

(07-08-2020 01:22 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Another strong ad from the tribalist-resistant Republicans.

Loading may require visiting Twitter, as Twitter has flagged this as potentially sensitive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/us/po...party.html

"Some voters who disliked both nominees in 2016 chose a third-party candidate instead. Now, many of them are shunning President Trump and are ready to back Joe Biden." - pretty much describes my 2016 and 2020 choices for president

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps you might want to address the points I brought up. Or, I guess, simply ignore the historical rationales for sovereigns. Your choice.

Here they are again ---

As an initial matter, where did you come up with this list of "historical rationales for sovereigns"? Were these factors fashioned specifically for states in the USA?

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1) what special or unique geographical concern does that 68.5 sq miles have as opposed to any of its nearest neighbors? (i.e. Hawaii)

I don't see any more or less unique geographical concerns for DC statehood than I do for the lines drawn throughout most of the USA, including state sovereignty lines that follows rivers and thereby divide metro areas (e.g. Kansas City, Memphis, and Omaha). I'm not sure whether "special" in your question is tied to "geographic" or whether "special" stands on its own. If it stands on its own without geographic ties, then obviously DC's historical status as not being part of Maryland or Virginia is both special and unique.

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  2) what special or unique industrial of economic concerns does that 68.5 sq miles have *aside* from the Federal government or ancillaries (i.e. law firms, lobbying firms, etc)? (i.e. Alaska, North Dakota, Iowa, Montana)

Aside from the federal government? Why is the federal government's presence and influence on the DC economy something we can simply ignore? DC is special and unique economically specifically because of this fact, but I don't see why this fact works against DC statehood. Also, tourism is a huge economic concern in DC, as it is in Arlington and Bethesda.

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  3) how does a sovereign status, make the governance of the 68.5 sq miles as a self-governing sovereign any easier on the Federal government? (i.e. Montana in the 1880's and the appointment of a governor)

Congress passed the Home Rule Act which has already significantly lightened the load of Congress needing to oversee DC affairs. According DC sovereign status takes this the rest of the way and helps remove the force of national politics on issues that should be purely local.

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  4) is the 68.5 sq miles a self-governing sovereign in its own right at the present? (Vermont, Texas)

I honestly haven't done much research into this, but it seems like since the Home Rule Act was passed DC is operating at >50% sovereign, but with the knowledge that Congress could undo anything or remove all sovereign-like powers if it wanted to.

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The left dismisses the repatriation to Maryland, but also fails to note that if repatriated, would become the strongest and largest contingent of representation to the Maryland chambers, since it has somewhere between 15-20% more population than Baltimore, and more on the order of 30% when the already existing Maryland suburbs are included.

As for 'the needs of the Metro DC area are strange to Maryland', well, uh........ no....... they are not. I suggest you see the map and how populous the MD portion of the Metro DC area already is.

You seem to agree that if DC becomes a state, perhaps parts of Maryland and Virginia should be included in the new state? More seriously, I agree that parts of Maryland and Virginia are basically as tied to DC as they are to their own states. Which proves that DC can function as a state and that the federal government can survive with DC as a state.

Many of these factors/arguments seem very ticky-tacky to me. You can use the same factors/arguments to argue about where the border between existing states (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) should have been drawn. At the end of the day, the state/state and state/DC borders are where they are. DC is the only place not included within a state within the contiguous USA for the past 108 years (since Arizona was admitted as the 48th state). I don't think DC residents see themselves as Marylanders (or Virginians). Why force them into a state that they don't see themselves as a part of? That seems more disruptive to the current and historical balance than DC statehood.

(07-08-2020 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was taught in civics class (how many remember those?) that the reason DC was not a state and was not given senators or representatives was that the founders wanted to limit the influence of the center of government on national affairs. They would have been shocked at the powers that the bureaucracy has taken for itself, particularly over recent decades.

I don't think there is much overlap between "the bureaucracy" and DC residents. Money's influence on politics and elections is a bigger concern than if DC somehow gets 2 senators and 1 representative.

Query relevance of this factoid to the discussion at hand.

And the only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of the distribution and allocation of money. So long as government dictates economic winners and losers, those who want to be winners with try to buy influence.

My understanding is that one rationale for DC being separate from a state was that the founders were concerned about one state having too much influence/power over the new nation's capital. I was merely pointing out that this concern isn't really valid anymore. If DC becomes a state or becomes part of Maryland, the new state (or Maryland) don't suddenly have some great influence over federal politics or the sovereignty or politics in other states.

(07-08-2020 01:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I disagree. Dallas/Fort Worth has considered itself part of Texas and Texas has considered Dallas/Forth Worth to be a part of Texas for over 150 years. For over 150 years Dallas/Forth Worth has been subject to laws enacted by the Texas legislature. At no point in the last 200 years has DC considered itself to be part of any state or subject to the laws of any state, including Maryland. At no point in recent history has DC considered itself to be part of Maryland or Virginia, notwithstanding that the original land for DC was carved out of those states.

Which to me only demonstrates that DC owes its existence to the Federal Government rather than as an independent state.

Somehow, DC has gotten trillions in Federal support... I suspect it is the largest 'receiver' of Federal dollars per Area or Population over the centuries despite 'no representation'. I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek because 535 Congressmen 'support' it... at least somewhat. Certainly more than say, a Vermont Senator or House member supports infrastructure improvements in Idaho.

What is different about DC in 2020 than in 1920 or 1820 that it now needs representation that it never before had? The district was set up 'knowing' what it would become.... as it always has been.

From the minimal research I have done, it seems that the founding fathers discussed the issue of representation for DC residents, couldn't agree, quickly moved on to more important topics and left this issue for future generations to decide. So the issue has existed since 1787 and has remained unaddressed and unresolved for 233 years now. Seems like as good of a time as any to resolve it. Then we could all flip Hamilton and Madison the bird as we triumphantly resolve something that they could not.

I don't have time to look at the bolded part, but I suspect you are incorrect (at least in the ways that matter ... to which I mean that DC "receiving" money to renovate a federal building doesn't really help DC all that much). But I don't care enough to do the research and I have no problem with you having your own contrary suspicion and not researching the topic.

(07-08-2020 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  If you are going to spew garbage like this, am I allowed to be a true low level soldier, deceived by my party masters, and start calling you a trumpbot? Just curious.

Here I was trying to nice, and not include you in the Machiavellian machinations of your party elite. I think the movers and shakers have very different goals and motivations than the followers. I didn't realize you were a mover/shaker. I thought you were just a follower, hence the term "soldier ant", one who marches in lockstep to the commands of others. It's like the difference between Hitler and the deluded Germans who voted him in. I want to attribute purer altruistic motives to the lower level, and not tar the whole party because the motivations of the top people. But as you wish, I will regard you as a co-conspirator with the rest of the elite.

You are allowed to to do as you want for now. If you want to be deceived, you are allowed to be deceived. Maybe not so much in 2050, if you are successful in getting what you want now. But it won't be conservatives you will have to ask permission from then.

To be clear, I don't actually give 2 that you called me a "soldier ant". I just think it is hilariously hypocritical for you to get your knickers in a wad when someone calls you a "trumpbot" (or something similar) and then you turn around and call others "soldier ant". Just decide whether that kind of categorization is OK (in your mind) or not around here. If it is OK, then accept being called a trumpbot (by others, not my term!) without complaint. If it is no OK (in your mind), then stop doing it to others. Easy peasy.

(07-08-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps you might want to address the points I brought up. Or, I guess, simply ignore the historical rationales for sovereigns. Your choice.

Here they are again ---

1) what special or unique geographical concern does that 68.5 sq miles have as opposed to any of its nearest neighbors? (i.e. Hawaii)

2) what special or unique industrial of economic concerns does that 68.5 sq miles have *aside* from the Federal government or ancillaries (i.e. law firms, lobbying firms, etc)? (i.e. Alaska, North Dakota, Iowa, Montana)

3) how does a sovereign status, make the governance of the 68.5 sq miles as a self-governing sovereign any easier on the Federal government? (i.e. Montana in the 1880's and the appointment of a governor)

4) is the 68.5 sq miles a self-governing sovereign in its own right at the present? (Vermont, Texas)

The sole and bald reason for statehood of the 700,000 people and the 68.5 sq miles of no appreciable economic activity aside from that associated with the Federal government, when one looks at the historical reasons, is simply the addition of two more Senators.

I mean, and no offense, one would have to be fairly myopic not to note that, especially with the observations of the historical rationales above.

The left dismisses the repatriation to Maryland, but also fails to note that if repatriated, would become the strongest and largest contingent of representation to the Maryland chambers, since it has somewhere between 15-20% more population than Baltimore, and more on the order of 30% when the already existing Maryland suburbs are included.

As for 'the needs of the Metro DC area are strange to Maryland', well, uh........ no....... they are not. I suggest you see the map and how populous the MD portion of the Metro DC area already is.

To the bolded - absolutely disagree, and with a statement like that, how is anyone supposed to have an honest debate?

Perhaps because the national level Democrats can only address statehood, there is zero interest from the Democrats as a whole into a 'repatriating' type solution.

Perhaps when the national Democrats actually address this as you do, my comment will change. I wont hold my breath for the national Democrats to push forward a bill of repatriation as opposed to the current bill of statehood. Hopefully you wont either.

Quote:The reason this is up for debate is that DC residents currently do not have any representation in the Senate (and basically none in the House) and many feel that should be rectified.

One option to do that is to grant the city statehood. Another is to fold them into another state. There are obvious arguments for and against each option.

And none of the historical reasons go the 'for' side.

Quote:Comparing this to Puerto Rico, there are many more reasons to favor rolling DC into another state, than for granting it statehood. But your bolded statement completely dismisses the very real reason why statehood is on the table.

If the Democrats viewed the issue of representation with anywhere near the vigor of 2 extra Senators, there would be an additional bill that would have as an end result a 'repatriation' aspect. There is one bill proposed, and one bill passed. I'll give you a coupon for the hamburger if you can tell me what route it proposes.

You spout the **** about all the concerns about representation, but when it comes down to the actual real world brass tacks on gaining that representation, wow, color me fing surprised that the politically easier mode of repatriation isnt even fing mentioned. In fact, there has *never* been such a bill.

So flap your arms all you want about the 'concern for representation', in the real world it is pretty fing obvious that the goal of 2 extra senators far outweighs your squawked for concern about representation. That is the simple, in the facts truth. As evidenced by the Congressional record.

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Because you don't fundamentally appreciate what an American state is. You seem to think it is a French department. It is not.

I don't know what a French department is. Accordingly, I promise you that I do not think US states are French department's (laughing at my own ignorance on this one)

Seriously???? Sigh....

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  ... you are not citing valid arguments for why it shouldn't be a state now.

Yes we are. You just don't agree with them.

I wasn't quite clear enough. I agree that some of the arguments y'all are making have validity, but I believe a couple of the more historically-based arguments are no longer persuasive or valid.

(07-08-2020 11:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Then you misunderstand the concern, perhaps not completely, but significantly. As has been explained, it is not merely Congress's de jure authority that makes DC incapable of separate sovereignty from the national government.

Has anyone really dug into this argument? It seems to be a presumption on your part but you haven't really explained why. Getting back to one of your posts from a few days ago:

(07-06-2020 03:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  For Pete's sake, a state is a unitary entity; its subdivisions have no more sovereignty than administrative departments. Moreover, no state vests representational rights in its political subdivisions as entities (in fact, the Supreme Court has made it illegal to do so).

The United States is entirely different. It is not at all just a great big state; it is a union of distinct sovereigns. And, because those constituent members of the union are sovereigns, they expressly have representational rights as members, not merely as lumps of residents. An entity that is not and cannot be substantively sovereign, that is in fact virtually owned by the national sovereign, is not in any political sense like the others.

Didn't we all learn these things in middle school?

First, I have one kid who finished middle school a year ago and another who is between 6th and 7th grades right now. I think I can speak authoritatively that this is not the kind of thing they learned at their middle school, certainly not this degree of detail. I am certain the same is true for my middle school experience.

I'm sorry to hear that. It was the kind of thing I learned.

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Second, you keep arguing that that DC is "[a]n entity that is not and cannot be substantively sovereign, that is in fact virtually owned by the national sovereign...." What is your argument that DC "cannot" be substantively sovereign from the federal government? I don't follow that line of thinking at all.

Well, it was laid out in another post -- and it shouldn't be so mysterious to you anyway. You seem to be acting deliberately dense.

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  That gets back the hyperbolic point i keep making about about federalism collapsing in on itself like a black hole if DC becomes a state.

That's your silly characterization. It's not anything I said, or even implied.

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You keep saying it doesn't work with DC and I keep asking why and the only answer I can discern from your responses is "because it can't!"

Again, it has already been explained, and isn't all that mysterious anyway. If you can't see it, it's not anyone else's fault.

(07-08-2020 02:37 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was taught in civics class (how many remember those?) that the reason DC was not a state and was not given senators or representatives was that the founders wanted to limit the influence of the center of government on national affairs. They would have been shocked at the powers that the bureaucracy has taken for itself, particularly over recent decades.

I don't think there is much overlap between "the bureaucracy" and DC residents. Money's influence on politics and elections is a bigger concern than if DC somehow gets 2 senators and 1 representative.

Query relevance of this factoid to the discussion at hand.
And the only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of the distribution and allocation of money. So long as government dictates economic winners and losers, those who want to be winners with try to buy influence.

My understanding is that one rationale for DC being separate from a state was that the founders were concerned about one state having too much influence/power over the new nation's capital. I was merely pointing out that this concern isn't really valid anymore. If DC becomes a state or becomes part of Maryland, the new state (or Maryland) don't suddenly have some great influence over federal politics or the sovereignty or politics in other states.

Given today's close to 50-50 divide in the nation, giving two more senators to a jurisdiction that is certain to vote one way will almost certainly have a significant effect on federal politics, just as the founders worried. Adding DC to Maryland would not have nearly as big an effect, since Maryland is already pretty much left of left.

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps you might want to address the points I brought up. Or, I guess, simply ignore the historical rationales for sovereigns. Your choice.

Here they are again ---

As an initial matter, where did you come up with this list of "historical rationales for sovereigns"? Were these factors fashioned specifically for states in the USA?

By actually taking a quick look look at the record. When you bother to do that, the rationales kind of stand out rather starkly. Or, perhaps you should fire up the ol' history book, study it, then come back to us with *your* view of the historic rationales. Or not.

Quote:

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1) what special or unique geographical concern does that 68.5 sq miles have as opposed to any of its nearest neighbors? (i.e. Hawaii)

I don't see any more or less unique geographical concerns for DC statehood than I do for the lines drawn throughout most of the USA, including state sovereignty lines that follows rivers and thereby divide metro areas (e.g. Kansas City, Memphis, and Omaha). I'm not sure whether "special" in your question is tied to "geographic" or whether "special" stands on its own. If it stands on its own without geographic ties, then obviously DC's historical status as not being part of Maryland or Virginia is both special and unique.

That is a lot of words to dance around the word 'no'.

Quote:

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  2) what special or unique industrial of economic concerns does that 68.5 sq miles have *aside* from the Federal government or ancillaries (i.e. law firms, lobbying firms, etc)? (i.e. Alaska, North Dakota, Iowa, Montana)

Aside from the federal government? Why is the federal government's presence and influence on the DC economy something we can simply ignore? DC is special and unique economically specifically because of this fact, but I don't see why this fact works against DC statehood. Also, tourism is a huge economic concern in DC, as it is in Arlington and Bethesda.

Having a the major economic interest as 'center of the Federal government' really isnt much of a fing industry.

And no, it doesnt 'work against it' -- the factors are 'does this factor lend itself to the granting of a local sovereign.'

As an example --- the prevalence of oil and localized agriculture lend a positive boost to making Oklahoma a sovereign. The prevalence of gold, banking, and foreign trade lend a positive boost to making California a state.

It can be social factors: the prevalence of a majority Mormon population lended a boost to the entrance of Nevada, along with a metric ton of mining.

Yours for DC is --- the federal Government is fing huge.

Aside from the 'business of bureaucracy', there is zero in the economic makeup of the 68.4 sq miles that engenders any real reason in that aspect. So, the rationale that either: a) DC has significant special economic issues that lend a positive boost (it doesnt); or b) wow, lets count the bureaucracy as special and unique economic interest. Kind of a bad show either way there, but I am sure you will make a go of it for the team.

Quote:

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  3) how does a sovereign status, make the governance of the 68.5 sq miles as a self-governing sovereign any easier on the Federal government? (i.e. Montana in the 1880's and the appointment of a governor)

Congress passed the Home Rule Act which has already significantly lightened the load of Congress needing to oversee DC affairs. According DC sovereign status takes this the rest of the way and helps remove the force of national politics on issues that should be purely local.

So the answer is that it doesnt lighten the load. Thank you for saying that.

Quote:

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  4) is the 68.5 sq miles a self-governing sovereign in its own right at the present? (Vermont, Texas)

I honestly haven't done much research into this, but it seems like since the Home Rule Act was passed DC is operating at >50% sovereign, but with the knowledge that Congress could undo anything or remove all sovereign-like powers if it wanted to.

The answer, fully, is no, it is not a sovereign in its own right.

Quote:

(07-08-2020 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The left dismisses the repatriation to Maryland, but also fails to note that if repatriated, would become the strongest and largest contingent of representation to the Maryland chambers, since it has somewhere between 15-20% more population than Baltimore, and more on the order of 30% when the already existing Maryland suburbs are included.

As for 'the needs of the Metro DC area are strange to Maryland', well, uh........ no....... they are not. I suggest you see the map and how populous the MD portion of the Metro DC area already is.

You seem to agree that if DC becomes a state, perhaps parts of Maryland and Virginia should be included in the new state? More seriously, I agree that parts of Maryland and Virginia are basically as tied to DC as they are to their own states. Which proves that DC can function as a state and that the federal government can survive with DC as a state.

The funny thing is that elsewhere I saw the solution of repatriation jokingly noted as a solution, with sarcastic comment that the progressives would build their earthworks in defense of nothing less than statehood. Funny, you have just given life to that caricature.

The key isnt whether 'land should be repatriated into a new state -- that is rather undoable'. The question is *why* there exists a special reason for such statehood. You have done an admirable rubbberman impression in sticking with the 'statehood or nothing'.

Quote:Many of these factors/arguments seem very ticky-tacky to me.

For creation of a sovereign, they seem rather on point. I am sorry they really dont lend your angst much help.

Since they are 'ticky tacky', perhaps you should lend us some of that impressive insight on *why* there is a special reason for a sovereign there? The best dish you have been able to show is that the City Council will have to make new friends and they shouldnt have to be bothered to do so. Seriously? If that is a reason for sovereignty, then there are probably 3000 cities that should apply for sovereignty due to already bad relations with their own capitals.

Quote:You can use the same factors/arguments to argue about where the border between existing states (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) should have been drawn. At the end of the day, the state/state and state/DC borders are where they are. DC is the only place not included within a state within the contiguous USA for the past 108 years (since Arizona was admitted as the 48th state). I don't think DC residents see themselves as Marylanders (or Virginians). Why force them into a state that they don't see themselves as a part of? That seems more disruptive to the current and historical balance than DC statehood.

Doesnt seem to be an amazingly deep rationale to follow for sovereignty.

(07-08-2020 02:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  If you are going to spew garbage like this, am I allowed to be a true low level soldier, deceived by my party masters, and start calling you a trumpbot? Just curious.

Here I was trying to nice, and not include you in the Machiavellian machinations of your party elite. I think the movers and shakers have very different goals and motivations than the followers. I didn't realize you were a mover/shaker. I thought you were just a follower, hence the term "soldier ant", one who marches in lockstep to the commands of others. It's like the difference between Hitler and the deluded Germans who voted him in. I want to attribute purer altruistic motives to the lower level, and not tar the whole party because the motivations of the top people. But as you wish, I will regard you as a co-conspirator with the rest of the elite.

You are allowed to to do as you want for now. If you want to be deceived, you are allowed to be deceived. Maybe not so much in 2050, if you are successful in getting what you want now. But it won't be conservatives you will have to ask permission from then.

To be clear, I don't actually give 2 that you called me a "soldier ant". I just think it is hilariously hypocritical for you to get your knickers in a wad when someone calls you a "trumpbot" (or something similar) and then you turn around and call others "soldier ant". Just decide whether that kind of categorization is OK (in your mind) or not around here. If it is OK, then accept being called a trumpbot (by others, not my term!) without complaint. If it is no OK (in your mind), then stop doing it to others. Easy peasy.

You are free to object to being called a "soldier ant". I am free to object to being called a trumpbot. Easy Peasy.

(07-08-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  .

So flap your arms all you want about the 'concern for representation', in the real world it is pretty fing obvious that the goal of 2 extra senators far outweighs your squawked for concern about representation. That is the simple, in the facts truth. As evidenced by the Congressional record.

The ultimate goal is one party rule. Big's desire for 30 more Democrat Senators is one more evidence of this.

(07-08-2020 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:37 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was taught in civics class (how many remember those?) that the reason DC was not a state and was not given senators or representatives was that the founders wanted to limit the influence of the center of government on national affairs. They would have been shocked at the powers that the bureaucracy has taken for itself, particularly over recent decades.

I don't think there is much overlap between "the bureaucracy" and DC residents. Money's influence on politics and elections is a bigger concern than if DC somehow gets 2 senators and 1 representative.

Query relevance of this factoid to the discussion at hand.
And the only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of the distribution and allocation of money. So long as government dictates economic winners and losers, those who want to be winners with try to buy influence.

My understanding is that one rationale for DC being separate from a state was that the founders were concerned about one state having too much influence/power over the new nation's capital. I was merely pointing out that this concern isn't really valid anymore. If DC becomes a state or becomes part of Maryland, the new state (or Maryland) don't suddenly have some great influence over federal politics or the sovereignty or politics in other states.

Given today's close to 50-50 divide in the nation, giving two more senators to a jurisdiction that is certain to vote one way will almost certainly have a significant effect on federal politics, just as the founders worried. Adding DC to Maryland would not have nearly as big an effect, since Maryland is already pretty much left of left.

It will affect national politics in globo, but DC’s representatives in Congress would not have any more or less influence than any other state’s representatives, which is the point I was a I was making and was one of the founders’ initial concerns.

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm sorry to hear that. It was the kind of thing I learned.

I had a great quip about how at least I know how to do block quotes on The Quad, but you have now deprived me of this by fixing your quotation blocking. Where did you go to middle school? I feel like it is pretty unusual to teach middle school students the finer points of state sovereignty and what that actually means.

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Second, you keep arguing that that DC is "[a]n entity that is not and cannot be substantively sovereign, that is in fact virtually owned by the national sovereign...." What is your argument that DC "cannot" be substantively sovereign from the federal government? I don't follow that line of thinking at all.

Well, it was laid out in another post -- and it shouldn't be so mysterious to you anyway. You seem to be acting deliberately dense.

I am not acting deliberately dense. You are pretty straight-up with me on this forum and you don't talk down to me or act like a jerk, so I wouldn't do that to you.

I have read all the posts the last few days. The only ones touching on the topic that I remember were premised on the belief that DC is so inextricably reliant on, and intertwined with, the federal government that DC cannot be independent (for lack of a more precise word) from the federal government to exercise its own sovereignty. I reject that belief, for which no support has been put forth.

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  That gets back the hyperbolic point i keep making about about federalism collapsing in on itself like a black hole if DC becomes a state.

That's your silly characterization. It's not anything I said, or even implied.

I agree! Which is why I have repeatedly referred to it as hyperbole! Still, I don't understand what you think actually happens if DC becomes a state.

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  [quote='georgewebb' pid='16894800' dateline='1594224881']
Because you don't fundamentally appreciate what an American state is. You seem to think it is a French department. It is not.

I don't know what a French department is. Accordingly, I promise you that I do not think US states are French department's (laughing at my own ignorance on this one)

Seriously???? Sigh....

I can't tell whether you are joking or being a bit of a jerk (which is unlike you in my experience). Why would I know this? I've never studied France other than briefly touching on France's government structure for one of my poli sci classes at Rice 22 years ago. In fact, it is a running joke in our family that I hate all things French, so I almost actively seek to avoid learning about France. My stance is particularly poignant since my wife speaks almost fluent French, takes French classes on zoom, takes zoom accordion lessons from a frenchman, and has a 1/2 french brother-in-law whom she loves to speak french with. I have been to the country twice and can't order a croissant from a cafe without the people looking at me like I'm an ignoramus.

The conservative opposition is to the automatic two Democratic Senators. Same as the Democrat opposition to splitting California into North and South - that would be two more Republican Senators. And, also, electoral votes. Nobody wants the other party to gain strength.

However, I must say, North California is considerably bigger than DC, both in area and population.

Neither has anything to do with DC representatives wielding a disproportionate amount of influence.

Although I think it was a concern at the time DC was created.

We may have to go to a Compromise of 1850 type of arrangement - admit in pairs, to offset each other.

(07-08-2020 06:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Because you don't fundamentally appreciate what an American state is. You seem to think it is a French department. It is not.

I don't know what a French department is. Accordingly, I promise you that I do not think US states are French department's (laughing at my own ignorance on this one)

Seriously???? Sigh....

I can't tell whether you are joking or being a bit of a jerk (which is unlike you in my experience). Why would I know this?

Sorry. I honestly thought it was common knowledge among educated Americans. My mistake.

(07-08-2020 06:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm sorry to hear that. It was the kind of thing I learned.

I had a great quip about how at least I know how to do block quotes on The Quad, but you have now deprived me of this by fixing your quotation blocking. Where did you go to middle school? I feel like it is pretty unusual to teach middle school students the finer points of state sovereignty and what that actually means.

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Second, you keep arguing that that DC is "[a]n entity that is not and cannot be substantively sovereign, that is in fact virtually owned by the national sovereign...." What is your argument that DC "cannot" be substantively sovereign from the federal government? I don't follow that line of thinking at all.

Well, it was laid out in another post -- and it shouldn't be so mysterious to you anyway. You seem to be acting deliberately dense.

I am not acting deliberately dense. You are pretty straight-up with me on this forum and you don't talk down to me or act like a jerk, so I wouldn't do that to you.

I have read all the posts the last few days. The only ones touching on the topic that I remember were premised on the belief that DC is so inextricably reliant on, and intertwined with, the federal government that DC cannot be independent (for lack of a more precise word) from the federal government to exercise its own sovereignty. I reject that belief, for which no support has been put forth.

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  That gets back the hyperbolic point i keep making about about federalism collapsing in on itself like a black hole if DC becomes a state.

That's your silly characterization. It's not anything I said, or even implied.

I agree! Which is why I have repeatedly referred to it as hyperbole! Still, I don't understand what you think actually happens if DC becomes a state.

(07-08-2020 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  [quote='georgewebb' pid='16894800' dateline='1594224881']
Because you don't fundamentally appreciate what an American state is. You seem to think it is a French department. It is not.

I don't know what a French department is. Accordingly, I promise you that I do not think US states are French department's (laughing at my own ignorance on this one)

Seriously???? Sigh....

I can't tell whether you are joking or being a bit of a jerk (which is unlike you in my experience). Why would I know this? I've never studied France other than briefly touching on France's government structure for one of my poli sci classes at Rice 22 years ago. In fact, it is a running joke in our family that I hate all things French, so I almost actively seek to avoid learning about France. My stance is particularly poignant since my wife speaks almost fluent French, takes French classes on zoom, takes zoom accordion lessons from a frenchman, and has a 1/2 french brother-in-law whom she loves to speak french with. I have been to the country twice and can't order a croissant from a cafe without the people looking at me like I'm an ignoramus.

Its okay, being a Texan in California before I moved back to redneckland, I was subjected to that attitude for 14 years.