(07-08-2020 06:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

If Rice had given you a proper education, you would know. I'm serious.

Quote: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.

Does that mean you oppose Bismarck health care/insurance?

(07-08-2020 04:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

mrbig - "it strikes me that you might be a hypocrite on this, here is an opportunity to clarify your position"
OO -

(07-08-2020 09:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 06:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

If Rice had given you a proper education, you would know. I'm serious.

I think that is a silly opinion. I'm serious. When I was there I needed 10 poli sci classes for my poli sci degree (along with a bunch more for my environmental engineering sciences degree), but there wasn't some "learn about the different levels of political division in France" requirement.

(07-08-2020 09:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 06:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

Does that mean you oppose Bismarck health care/insurance?

I mean, I said it is a running joke, so no. I actually really enjoy going to France and have had a great time while there, so I really only show my francophobia in my house with my family.

(07-09-2020 09:51 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

mrbig - "it strikes me that you might be a hypocrite on this, here is an opportunity to clarify your position"
OO -

I don't think I am, but of course you are free (for now) to interpret my speaking in any way you want. It is still a free country (for now).

I didn't like being called a trumpbot (whoever said it) since it is inaccurate. When I vote for Trump in October this year, it will make one in a row. I didn't vote for him in the 2016 Texas primary, the 2016 general election, or the 2020 Texas primary. I don't own a MAGA hat and I don't watch Fox and Friends (what time does it come on anyway? If it riles you up that much, it cannot be that bad.) I also don't agree with everything he says and does, in fact that is why I did not vote for him in 2016. I have some policy disagreements with him. I think of a bot as an automatic rubberstamp. That's not me.

Now you may not see yourself as a soldier ant, but that is a term I use for those who blindly follow the leadership of the Party. Your desire for 30 more Democrat Senators is telling. I cannot see where you differ from the lines the Party dictates in any appreciable degree. You support what they support. I just thought soldier ant was more polite than "lemming" or "sheep" or "party animal". At least a soldier ant has an aura of honor. Fighting blindly, following orders, defending the Queen at all costs.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

No need to be unnecessarily jerky (sadly, not that I expect anything else at this point). I didn't know if you pulled your list from a decent online source or if it is just something you developed on your own like Eponine in Les Miserables.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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'.

That wasn't very many words at all, which you would realize if you were really reading the ole' history books you alluded to above.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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.

I understand that you are no lover of the federal bureaucracy and all that it entails, but you also can't pretend like it doesn't exist just to make your argument stronger.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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.

I think it does lighten the load. I think the bigger issue is freeing DC from a Congress who doesn't have DC's best interests at the forefront of its decisions and in which DC residents are not represented.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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.

So one of the factors about whether a place that is not currently a self-governing sovereign should be a self-governing sovereign is whether the place is a self-governing sovereign?

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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'.

When did I ever say or suggest "statehood or nothing"? I think that option is better than what we currently have. I think a much more important question is "Do DC residents want to be part of Maryland" followed closely by "Does Maryland want DC to be part of it, or would Maryland prefer to have DC as its own state?" The answer to the question of "What do a few random conservative libertarian Texans who fear the addition of two likely democratic senators think about DC statehood?" is pretty low on the list. Incidentally, I have no idea whether DC residents want to be a state or if they are happy with the status quo. If they don't want to be a state, then I don't think statehood should be forced on them (just like I don't think they should be forced into Maryland).

At the end of the day, your factors are different than my factors. That doesn't bother me at all and it explains why we come to different conclusions. Its admirable that you seem to think your factors are the "correct" factors and the only ones that matter. Good on you.

(07-08-2020 09:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 06:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

If Rice had given you a proper education, you would know. I'm serious.

Universities stopped providing a universal (i.e. to all students) liberal (in the academic sense) education a couple of generations ago. In my case, my knowledge of history, geography, literature, art and other things outside my majors is rooted mostly in what I learned in middle and high school, and perhaps most importantly in the curiosity about those things that was kindled in those years.

For the specific example we were talking about, it certainly wasn't Rice that taught me about the French Revolution. To cite some other examples that have come up in social media where I mistakenly thought something was common knowledge among the well-educated, it wasn't Rice that taught me about map projections*, Greek mythology, or Soviet Communism -- just to mention a few. These aren't things that I learned uniquely; they are familiar to almost everyone I grew up with or was friends with in college, which is why I'm consistently surprised to discover that they are unfamiliar to a great many people with nearly identical backgrounds.



*To expand on this particular topic a bit: every year or so, I see a post on Facebook breathlessly proclaiming "Guess what: the maps you were taught in school are wrong!!!!". It then goes on to denounce the Mercator projection as if it were a stunning expose' of a scandalous conspiracy. One reason these posts perplex me is that when I was in school, it was made quite clear (starting in elementary school) that every 2-D projection of the globe has both accuracies and distortions, that the Mercator map is one such projection, and that you should keep these in mind whenever you use a map. I can't imagine this point not being stressed in any teaching of geography.

My hunch is that in most cases, the breathless Facebook posters were imparted this information as youngsters, but either failed to listen or failed to retain it. And I suspect the fault for that lies mostly in their own incuriosity.

I think this explains one problem you and I have had communicating:

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Sure ... I would love 30 more democratic senators even more and you don't see me advocating that New Orleans, San Fran, LA, Houston, and a bunch of other democratic/liberal enclaves should be granted statehood. There is a reason DC is being discussed for statehood and those other places are not.

(07-08-2020 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The ultimate goal is one party rule. Big's desire for 30 more Democrat Senators is one more evidence of this.

(07-09-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Your desire for 30 more Democrat Senators is telling.

To summarize:
mrbig - "I am not advocating for 30 more democratic senators by creating new states"
OO - "mrbig desires 30 more Democrat Senators"

Sure, I would like 30 more democratic Senators ... the old fashioned way (popular ideas that gain public support to win elections). Would you not like 30 more Republican Senators properly and popularly elected by their states? In your haste to argue, I fear:

There was a TV show 2 or 3 years ago called How the States got their shapes. Very interesting, to a geek like I am. One I remember was the Idaho/Montana border was moved westward to throw the gold bearing mountains into Montana, creating the odd (to me) Idaho panhandle. But politics made a difference in a lot states - the Missouri bootheel and the Oklahoma panhandle, for two.

As those of you who pay attention will remember, I have said I would support the secession of Texas from the US if it ever came up peacefully. There is another secession movement - the secession of Northern California from the State of California (not from the US). This movement is opposed by the Democrats, because it would likely result in the addition of two GOP Senators. Supported by the GOP, for the same reasons. The northerners are tired of SF and LA running their business. They want representation! The idea that DC is somehow different is a sham.

alternate maps

(07-09-2020 10:39 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Universities stopped providing a universal (i.e. to all students) liberal (in the academic sense) education a couple of generations ago. In my case, my knowledge of history, geography, literature, art and other things outside my majors is rooted mostly in what I learned in middle and high school, and perhaps most importantly in the curiosity about those things that was kindled in those years.

I think Rice did back in my day, which predates yours by a couple of decades IIRC. Or maybe it was just the fact that I wanted that kind of eduction and therefore chose a broad range of electives which fulfilled that purpose.

I don't think Rice does any more. I don't think the Ivies do. I don't know many places that do.

As nearly as I can tell from afar, I think Hillsdale does. But it has a strong ideological slant that doesn't work for everyone. Although I don't relish Michigan winters, it would probably be on my short list today. Of course, my Navy ROTC scholarship wouldn't work there, and I might have missed out on many wonderful life experiences as a result.

This is rough, but bear with me. Or bare with me if you want to wait until the 13th. DC is unique and I think it is either disingenuous or intellectually lazy to pretend like it isn't.

1 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents ever been governed by a state government or state-like government?
2 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents every been residents of a neighboring state?
3 - does Congress always have the best interests of DC residents in mind when it governs DC?
4 - are DC residents represented in Congress in a way that makes Congressional members responsive to the concerns of DC residents?
5 - should DC residents have a state-like government or be part of a state government that they elect?
6 - should DC residents get to choose whether they prefer the status quo, whether they want their own state government, or whether they want to join Maryland?

To me, the answers for 1-4 appear to be "no" so the answers to 5 & 6 are "yes". Congress doesn't represent DC or DC residents, it represents the whole country. DC residents don't have, but deserve to have, a state-like government that they elect (or have some part in electing). Thus, DC residents should have the option of keeping or rejecting the status quo. If they want to keep the status quo, statehood or repatriation should not be forced on them. If they reject the status quo, they should have the option to form their own state or join a neighboring state. If they prefer to join a neighboring state, both that neighboring state and Congress must approve the decision. If they prefer to form their own state, it must be approved by Congress.

I am fine with DC becoming Washington, Maryland. I bet Maryland would be fine with it too. Lots of tax revenue there.

I am not fine with DC becoming a city-state.

If congress must approve any change, I would hope that it would require a 2/3 or 3/4 majority, not a simple majority.

I wonder if we need to change the name, too.

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As those of you who pay attention will remember, I have said I would support the secession of Texas from the US if it ever came up peacefully.

I don't. I think we should all be stuck with each other in the USA at this point and I don't see how any state could secede peacefully.

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There is another secession movement - the secession of Northern California from the State of California (not from the US). This movement is opposed by the Democrats, because it would likely result in the addition of two GOP Senators. Supported by the GOP, for the same reasons. The northerners are tired of SF and LA running their business. They want representation! The idea that DC is somehow different is a sham.
alternate maps

I actually think some of the more populous states should be divided since it is more feasible than combining less populous states. I also think it should be done so those states have both more representative and responsive state governments, as well as more representative and responsive representatives in Congress. However, I don't think it should just happen in California. California should probably be split in 3 while Texas, Florida, and New York should be divided in half (if we want to go this route).

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The idea that DC is somehow different is a sham.

This is a ridiculous argument (sorry, but it is). Whether people that are currently in states want to be represented differently by their state governments is completely, totally different from whether people should have a state government at all. Grumpy conservatives in NoCal do actually have representatives at the state level. No such thing even exists for DC residents (conservatives or otherwise).

It kind of shatters my mind that conservatives don't think DC residents should have a say in whether they can have their own state government or whether they should be shoehorned into another state. Aren't conservatives (in the USA at least) supposed to support individual choice and prefer local/state government over they heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy? I wouldn't support DC statehood if DC was less populous than the least populous state. I would support DC statehood (or DC joining Maryland) even if it was a conservative enclave instead of a liberal enclave.

(07-09-2020 11:26 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As those of you who pay attention will remember, I have said I would support the secession of Texas from the US if it ever came up peacefully.

I don't. I think we should all be stuck with each other in the USA at this point and I don't see how any state could secede peacefully.

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There is another secession movement - the secession of Northern California from the State of California (not from the US). This movement is opposed by the Democrats, because it would likely result in the addition of two GOP Senators. Supported by the GOP, for the same reasons. The northerners are tired of SF and LA running their business. They want representation! The idea that DC is somehow different is a sham.
alternate maps

I actually think some of the more populous states should be divided since it is more feasible than combining less populous states. I also think it should be done so those states have both more representative and responsive state governments, as well as more representative and responsive representatives in Congress. However, I don't think it should just happen in California. California should probably be split in 3 while Texas, Florida, and New York should be divided in half (if we want to go this route).

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The idea that DC is somehow different is a sham.

This is a ridiculous argument (sorry, but it is). Whether people that are currently in states want to be represented differently by their state governments is completely, totally different from whether people should have a state government at all. Grumpy conservatives in NoCal do actually have representatives at the state level. No such thing even exists for DC residents (conservatives or otherwise).

My opposition is to Washington DC as a city-state. I have no objection to it being folded back into Maryland, a process that would satisfy your objectives and my objections. But I am sure it would NOT answer your Party's objections, as they want the extra Senators, period.

I think a partition of New York into NYC and upstate NY would be good. Same for California, into 2 or 3 entities. I don't see the need to partition Florida. I would rather see Texas as an independent country again than a bunch of little states.

I don't think we need to be "stuck' with each other. Bad marriages can be dissolved by divorce. Bad partnerships can be terminated. But I do not advocate secession by arms. There are legal challenges in the courts, and eventually one of them will find sympathetic ears. If Texas were one so, I would support it. But it won't happen in my lifetime.

(07-09-2020 10:31 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

No need to be unnecessarily jerky (sadly, not that I expect anything else at this point). I didn't know if you pulled your list from a decent online source or if it is just something you developed on your own like Eponine in Les Miserables.

I guess analysis of an issue isnt a good thing for you. Some of us still do that when 'statehood history cheat sheet' isnt an option.

The states that have been admitted stand in one of a few buckets:

a) original 13 signatories (as sovereigns in their own right);
b) direct carve outs from states (mainly dues to a perceived difference of focus within a state) (Maine, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama)
c) formation of states from a territory or portion of a territory, the territory having a specific economic focus as evidenced by their own petitions and primary cuts at Constitutions that lent to localized sovereignty as opposed to 'governance from afar' (the majority of states)
d) formation of a state from a territory, the territory having a uniqueness in geography that lent to localized sovereignty (Hawaii, Alaska)
e) the acceptance of a state that was a sovereign unto itself (Texas, Vermont)

Yes, when I get interested in why looking for the 'list' is good; when that 'list' isnt available I actually try to ascertain from the record 'why'.

That is my cut at it.

As opposed to simply stating 'North Dakota makes no sense as a state' as a blind comment, bummer, I try to find out the underlying reason why North Dakota is a state.

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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'.

That wasn't very many words at all, which you would realize if you were really reading the ole' history books you alluded to above.

Yes, asshat, I did try to read the histories. That is before making a vacuous statement like 'I dont know why North Dakota is a state'. Maybe that is a difference between you and I. Maybe not.

I guess if you want to go the churlishness route with me, that is your choice.

Quote:

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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.

I understand that you are no lover of the federal bureaucracy and all that it entails, but you also can't pretend like it doesn't exist just to make your argument stronger.

Have fun embracing 'Federal government' as the special economic reason for statehood. Sounds pretty fing stupid to me. As I would surmise it would to most.

But, you have to play the cards you are dealt, dont you?

Quote:

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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.

So one of the factors about whether a place that is not currently a self-governing sovereign should be a self-governing sovereign is whether the place is a self-governing sovereign?

I guess you arent familiar with the rationale why Texas was admitted directly as a state. Most people in this part of the country are somewhat familiar with that background.

And, that talk ahs been used when people have mentioned the possibility of admittance of the various portions of Canada --- since under the Canadian systems each province is already a sovereign.

I am sorry you dont understand. I guess that is one of the advantages of *actually* 'reading the historys that I alluded to.'

Quote:

(07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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'.

When did I ever say or suggest "statehood or nothing"? I think that option is better than what we currently have. I think a much more important question is "Do DC residents want to be part of Maryland" followed closely by "Does Maryland want DC to be part of it, or would Maryland prefer to have DC as its own state?" The answer to the question of "What do a few random conservative libertarian Texans who fear the addition of two likely democratic senators think about DC statehood?" is pretty low on the list. Incidentally, I have no idea whether DC residents want to be a state or if they are happy with the status quo. If they don't want to be a state, then I don't think statehood should be forced on them (just like I don't think they should be forced into Maryland).

At the end of the day, your factors are different than my factors. That doesn't bother me at all and it explains why we come to different conclusions. Its admirable that you seem to think your factors are the "correct" factors and the only ones that matter. Good on you.

Yep, your factors boil down to: a) poor DC city council doesnt know any one; and b) a smidgeon of air attempts that have zero relation as to the classic issues of why an area is deemed a sovereign state. And some 'Sharpie' rants about previous borders.

As for the 'correct' factors, they have seemingly worked pretty well for 220 years at this point. Funny that. I would surmise that they are not the 'correct' factors simply because they tilt against your predetermined point of view on the matter.

I mean, seriously, you have now essentially argued that 'Federal government' is an industry that needs its own special advocacy in.... get this now..... the Federal government. I really do wish there was a head slap emoji.

(07-09-2020 11:31 AM)mrbig Wrote:  It kind of shatters my mind that conservatives don't think DC residents should have a say in whether they can have their own state government or whether they should be shoehorned into another state. Aren't conservatives (in the USA at least) supposed to support individual choice and prefer local/state government over they heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy? I wouldn't support DC statehood if DC was less populous than the least populous state. I would support DC statehood (or DC joining Maryland) even if it was a conservative enclave instead of a liberal enclave.

One of the reasons is that is is a vacuous cover for adding 2 Democratic Senators.

I have zero issue with having DC representation --- your team is committed full throttle to only *one* solution to that. Again, I guess you dont notice that no other bill is before Congress (nor has there even been).

I would support DC statehood if it could show a unique and fairly special reason to have its own special recognition as a state.

Every single state to this point has done this.

All you can say is 'yes, the economy based on Federal power" *is* such a special reason -- which, when you think about, funnily runs smack straight into the Founding Fathers original rationale *not* to have the Capital as a state.

Funny that.

(07-09-2020 11:26 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As those of you who pay attention will remember, I have said I would support the secession of Texas from the US if it ever came up peacefully.

I don't. I think we should all be stuck with each other in the USA at this point and I don't see how any state could secede peacefully.

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There is another secession movement - the secession of Northern California from the State of California (not from the US). This movement is opposed by the Democrats, because it would likely result in the addition of two GOP Senators. Supported by the GOP, for the same reasons. The northerners are tired of SF and LA running their business. They want representation! The idea that DC is somehow different is a sham.
alternate maps

I actually think some of the more populous states should be divided since it is more feasible than combining less populous states. I also think it should be done so those states have both more representative and responsive state governments, as well as more representative and responsive representatives in Congress. However, I don't think it should just happen in California. California should probably be split in 3 while Texas, Florida, and New York should be divided in half (if we want to go this route).

(07-09-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The idea that DC is somehow different is a sham.

This is a ridiculous argument (sorry, but it is). Whether people that are currently in states want to be represented differently by their state governments is completely, totally different from whether people should have a state government at all. Grumpy conservatives in NoCal do actually have representatives at the state level. No such thing even exists for DC residents (conservatives or otherwise).

Funny, you previously made such a big show about Home Rule (and how it equated to sovereignty), yet in your rush you dont even notice how you have already made your last sentence a complete 180 from that previous point. Good job.

You are incorrect 'Grumpy conservatives fundamentally have representatives at the effective state level in DC'. At least be consistent.

(07-09-2020 11:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  This is rough, but bear with me. Or bare with me if you want to wait until the 13th. DC is unique and I think it is either disingenuous or intellectually lazy to pretend like it isn't.

1 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents ever been governed by a state government or state-like government?
2 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents every been residents of a neighboring state?
3 - does Congress always have the best interests of DC residents in mind when it governs DC?
4 - are DC residents represented in Congress in a way that makes Congressional members responsive to the concerns of DC residents?
5 - should DC residents have a state-like government or be part of a state government that they elect?
6 - should DC residents get to choose whether they prefer the status quo, whether they want their own state government, or whether they want to join Maryland?

To me, the answers for 1-4 appear to be "no" so the answers to 5 & 6 are "yes". Congress doesn't represent DC or DC residents, it represents the whole country. DC residents don't have, but deserve to have, a state-like government that they elect (or have some part in electing). Thus, DC residents should have the option of keeping or rejecting the status quo. If they want to keep the status quo, statehood or repatriation should not be forced on them. If they reject the status quo, they should have the option to form their own state or join a neighboring state. If they prefer to join a neighboring state, both that neighboring state and Congress must approve the decision. If they prefer to form their own state, it must be approved by Congress.

And 3 is a rhetorical question with the passage of Home Rule, and the existence of an independent Mayor and City Council.

That impacts question 5. DC is a city, the city council as such has the effective power of a state over the entire 68.4 sq mi jurisdiction.

(07-08-2020 02:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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.

'not changing things' for 233 years is not the same as having something unadressed or unresolved. You say they couldn't agree, but clearly they agreed on 'not' giving them statehood... and then on giving them a representative who couldn't vote. It was clearly addressed, and since they didn't touch it again for 233 years, apparently it was resolved.

Whether DC is the 'largest' receiver or not... the fact that you'd exclude infrastructure associated with a Federal Building which contributes to/is a big part of business in the district seems a fait accompli. Were it not for the Federal government, vastly fewer people would go to DC. None of the monuments or museums or consulates or any of the lobbyists offices would be there.... and certainly not the 150,000 civilian Federal employees and those who derive their income from them.

Supporters of DC statehood (who would naturally want this number to be as small as possible) say that DC gets between 25 and 30% of its budget from the Feds, making it the 6th largest 'receiver'.... according to 'them'. That's their calculation. (statehood.dc.gov) I'm betting that like you, they remove many things that I would include... so even if I assume that I'm just as motivated to KEEP them from being a state as they are in becoming one (which I am not)... the 'truth' lies somewhere in between... which puts them certainly in the top 5 of all states.

I am sure there are a dozen ways to look at these numbers... personally, I exclude things like Medicare, pensions and social security... because those were actually earned (and often paid into) by the people who live there, and would follow those people wherever they went. They aren't really subject to political discussion, i.e. Congress isn't voting to give DC retirees less social security than the same person in California or Texas... yet I've seen these numbers included by people who want to inflate the numbers for certain states with large retiree populations.

To me it's not remotely about 'shifting the balance' or whatever else... its more like the guy who lives in Jersey and works in NYC. He has taxation but no representation in NYC, but because he spends a lot of time in NY, he's going to support infrastructure improvements in NYC... but he won't give a darn about supporting Idaho.... so Idaho needs representation because nobody but those who live there support it. NYC has the support of all of those who live in Jersey, but work in NYC.

The difference is... like the NYC example on steroids... every single person who votes on federal appropriations has at least SOME interest in supporting DC because they spend so much time there... and so much of their staff lives or works there... they have offices and barbers and grocers and tailors and mechanics and repairmen and all sorts of 'needs' there.

Its vastly different for a place like say Puerto Rico... a place where I suspect most Congressmen never visit at all.... and certainly don't have offices open year round and personally spend half their year there. Unlike DC, any interest or affinity someone might have to throw a few bones at PR would serve little or no personal purpose for them. I'd have less trouble giving them a house rep than I would giving them Senate seats... based almost solely on the percentages. That's an awful lot of power to give to a small number of people for whom so many in Congress already have an affinity.

(07-09-2020 11:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  This is rough, but bear with me. Or bare with me if you want to wait until the 13th. DC is unique and I think it is either disingenuous or intellectually lazy to pretend like it isn't.
1 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents ever been governed by a state government or state-like government?
2 - in its 200+ year history, have DC residents every been residents of a neighboring state?
3 - does Congress always have the best interests of DC residents in mind when it governs DC?
4 - are DC residents represented in Congress in a way that makes Congressional members responsive to the concerns of DC residents?
5 - should DC residents have a state-like government or be part of a state government that they elect?
6 - should DC residents get to choose whether they prefer the status quo, whether they want their own state government, or whether they want to join Maryland?
To me, the answers for 1-4 appear to be "no" so the answers to 5 & 6 are "yes". Congress doesn't represent DC or DC residents, it represents the whole country. DC residents don't have, but deserve to have, a state-like government that they elect (or have some part in electing). Thus, DC residents should have the option of keeping or rejecting the status quo. If they want to keep the status quo, statehood or repatriation should not be forced on them. If they reject the status quo, they should have the option to form their own state or join a neighboring state. If they prefer to join a neighboring state, both that neighboring state and Congress must approve the decision. If they prefer to form their own state, it must be approved by Congress.

I'd say no, no, no, no, no, no. DC is a unique situation.