(07-06-2020 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah - that's the difference. The people of Dallas and Ft Worth are represented by Senators in the Senate. The people of DC are not.

Plus, the DC House representative has limited powers and is basically a figure head.

Representation is important, and it's rather silly to proffer that, legislatively speaking, DC residents and Dallas residents are similar. The difference should be rectified through statehood or granting them representation through the state of Maryland (or Virginia, but my understanding is Maryland would be the easier path).

Perhaps you should back up and read this through.

I already admitted that the representation thing is a viable issue. And noted that if that was the real issue, repatriation of the land back to Maryland is an insto-presto solution to those concerns.

Then I posed the alternative, which is the first thing in the cited string above.

The driving issue is statehood for DC, with the rationale of representation.

The solution of Maryland addresses the rationale. And if it addresses the rationale but not the drive, then state some other driving factors of why DC is so amenable to statehood.

Big noted he was really into statehood.

The response to the drive for statehood was the first message in your reply chain. Just saying that your response really isnt on target with the history of the thread. Your response is actually both superfluous, and bitingly sarcastic when that issue you are bitingly sarcastic over has already been discussed.

I understand that you've mentioned the Maryland alternative - but at some point you and OO went down the path of trying to compare DC residents to Dallas or FW residents, and I think that is a rather poor comparison. I say that since the residents of those cities are already represented by Reps and their state Senators AND they are governed as part of the State of Texas.

If DC was not without representation AND governed by a state, then I would understand the comparison if there was a push to grant statehood to a city. But it's not. I think that DC residents are closer to PR's in this regard than Forth Worth or Dallas.

lad, the point is that DC has no fing exceptional reason to have *individual* sovereignty on its own. Just as Dallas/Ft Worth have no fing exceptional claim for *individual* sovereignty on their own. Just as my neighborhood has no fing exceptional claim for *individual* sovereignty on its own.

Its not such a hard concept to grasp.

Perhaps you will tell us of the exceptional reasons that DC should have *individual* sovereignty? That is, above and beyond the issue that perhaps the residents therein should enjoy representation of two Senators (and which can be addressed by a simple repatriation to MD).

I understand George's logic, in that DC is inherently too closely linked with the federal government to act as a sovereign. That has compelling reasoning behind.

I don't see the compelling reason behind yours, regarding DC's "lack of exceptional claim for individual sovereignty." DC is basically looking to be categorized, so how should we best categorize it and provide its citizens representation? George lays out why they should be represented as part of another state. Your argument doesn't provide any rationale as to why they lack a claim.

As to reasons why DC does have an exceptional claim for sovereignty - DC has basically been acting as its own sovereign entity through the mayor's office for years, so the citizens have no real relationship with existing state governments, yet all other cities across the country have been governed by their state legislatures. The city has also been legislating and governing a population greater than some other states for a similar amount of time as well.

What makes DC's potential claim for sovereignty less exceptional than say North Dakota?

For one thing, the states that came out of the Minnesota Territory, all could claim some inherent localized based industry -- industries that really appear to fit the bill for representation -- they fit the bill for a need to have some consideration as a sovereign that could not be fulfilled by a proxy ruling and appointed Governor. The same can be denoted for every single state mind you, excepting of course the original 13 that were organized entities to themselves at the onset, some which were 'carve outs' (W Virginia, Maine, Kentucky), and Texas which was admitted as stand alone sovereign.

Every single state had a combination of: population, and inherent industry or collection of industries that called for governance by a stand alone sovereign. That is, as opposed to direct governance by a remote sovereign United States and intermediaried through an appointed Governor of the Territory. In the case of Texas, there was no intermediate step through the territorial process.

Lets denote any specific rationale for statehood for DC? What special issues does it have above and apart from the areas that abound it that set itself specially apart for singular self-rule? I cant think of any. The only real source of commerce and economic governance comes directly through and by the only real industry it has -- the Federal government. What special needs would be met by a state sovereign in that irregular trapezoid that call for special home rule sovereignty? Again, there are none.

So in summation the argument is that some pissant size of a land, which I have friends than have that amount of land more, which has no inherent industry which it has specialized knowledge of nor needs special representation of, and has no special issues in a geographic sense than any of its immediate neighbors, absolultely and critically needs the functionality of an individual sovereign? Anything I should add here?

I mean using that same checklist, Dallas/Fort Worth has 10x the population, 136x the area, has definite local differences in the economies aside and apart from their own sovereign, have well more inherent industry that DC, and have a GDP of about 8x that of DC when you back out the only 'industry' that DC can laughably claim (if you claim Government as an 'industry"), seems pretty inherent to me that Dallas/Fort Worth has *more* of claim for self-governing sovereignty than DC.

To be blunt, once the issue of 'well DC residents dont have a representative' thing out of the way, the entire predicate for the basis of DC being a state folds like a moth eaten suit in light of the traditional reasons for statehood and the traditional bases for formation of a state sovereign.