Options

Save DC

245678

Posts

  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DC actually contains two cities, Washington and Georgetown. There were other cities formerly within the district on the Virginia side.

    And sorry, but, "it is not a state so it can't be a state" is actually an even worse argument than my fake Columbia one.

    It's amazing how a simple paraphrase can make someone look so dumb

    I said it's just a city, not a state, and so it's not a state.

    I stated a fact, you spun it into an argument, and ignored my actual argument (political impossibility).

    So address my actual argument. Tell me how DC could ever, ever get past the Republican Party and their very earnest desire to not add two brand new, guaranteed Democratic senators to the mix.

    Perhaps at some point in the future when the political landscape of this country is dramatically different this could happen, but it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

    I'm not playing with your strawman. DC's size has nothing to do with the republican objections (it's political leanings do)

    I asked you why it SHOULDN'T be a state, not why it couldn't.

    Here you go

    If you just turn it into a state you've now created a state that's subserviant to the fed and has it's courts run by the fed, that isn't going to fly and isn't legal.

    You have to get around that first. Which is the problem, unless you can convince congress to just give all that up, which isn't going to happen.


    You can't just up and make it a state. You'd have to amend the control congress has over it out of the constitution and redo the entire legal system from the ground up. The first isn't going to fly, the second isn't really possible. And unless you do both, it's not going to get past the SCOUS.

    There are legal reasons why it can't be a state the way it is today.

    nstf on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    I'm also curious why Maryland would have such a big issue with it when a majority of Maryland's population lives in the areas around DC.
    DC itself isn't exactly in great shape and even if it was politicians are generally wary of introducing a large number of new voters (and with them, new politicians) into their political ecosystem.

    Quoting an old post here but don't you think having its problems and budget handled by a real state, that it itself belongs to, rather then Congress might be a step towards fixing those problems?

    You are dumping all of this part and parcel in the lap of a state that already has its own stuff to deal with.

    Haave you ever had some one at work quit or be fired, and have their work load dumped on you? Does it make you MORE efficient, or less?

    While being given more benefits and money.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    What are the negatives of giving DC statehood? Folks keep saying "it is too small" or "it is a bad idea", but I have yet to see anyone explain what bad thing would come of it.

    Is DC able to function without the enormous amount of federal money it receives? Because fuck it if we're going to let that continue if they become a state.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DC actually contains two cities, Washington and Georgetown. There were other cities formerly within the district on the Virginia side.

    And sorry, but, "it is not a state so it can't be a state" is actually an even worse argument than my fake Columbia one.

    If you just turn it into a state you've now created a state that's subserviant to the fed and has it's courts run by the fed, that isn't going to fly.

    You have to get around that first. Which is the problem, unless you can convince congress to just give all that up, which isn't going to happen.

    The "how" is a separate question from the "should".

    The constitution can be amended. It isn't easy to do, but it is possible.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Because DC is supposed to be the home of all the federated states.

    It's in the Constitution.

    They probably should get a Congressman/woman though with a voting share.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DC actually contains two cities, Washington and Georgetown. There were other cities formerly within the district on the Virginia side.

    And sorry, but, "it is not a state so it can't be a state" is actually an even worse argument than my fake Columbia one.

    If you just turn it into a state you've now created a state that's subserviant to the fed and has it's courts run by the fed, that isn't going to fly.

    You have to get around that first. Which is the problem, unless you can convince congress to just give all that up, which isn't going to happen.

    The "how" is a separate question from the "should".

    The constitution can be amended. It isn't easy to do, but it is possible.

    Then what's to stop every large city from realizing they benefit from seceding from their state and becoming their own state?

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    What are the negatives of giving DC statehood? Folks keep saying "it is too small" or "it is a bad idea", but I have yet to see anyone explain what bad thing would come of it.

    Is DC able to function without the enormous amount of federal money it receives? Because fuck it if we're going to let that continue if they become a state.

    Because states receive no federal funding?



    Not that this isn't a worthy line of thought to go down, but if your are implying that states function autonomously...

    Evander on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm curious, nstf, what states are not subservient to the federal government? Because I'm damned if I can think of any.
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DC actually contains two cities, Washington and Georgetown. There were other cities formerly within the district on the Virginia side.

    And sorry, but, "it is not a state so it can't be a state" is actually an even worse argument than my fake Columbia one.

    If you just turn it into a state you've now created a state that's subserviant to the fed and has it's courts run by the fed, that isn't going to fly.

    You have to get around that first. Which is the problem, unless you can convince congress to just give all that up, which isn't going to happen.

    The "how" is a separate question from the "should".

    The constitution can be amended. It isn't easy to do, but it is possible.

    Then what's to stop every large city from realizing they benefit from seceding from their state and becoming their own state?
    Nothing. They're welcome to attempt to do so.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DC actually contains two cities, Washington and Georgetown. There were other cities formerly within the district on the Virginia side.

    And sorry, but, "it is not a state so it can't be a state" is actually an even worse argument than my fake Columbia one.

    If you just turn it into a state you've now created a state that's subserviant to the fed and has it's courts run by the fed, that isn't going to fly.

    You have to get around that first. Which is the problem, unless you can convince congress to just give all that up, which isn't going to happen.

    The "how" is a separate question from the "should".

    The constitution can be amended. It isn't easy to do, but it is possible.

    Then what's to stop every large city from realizing they benefit from seceding from their state and becoming their own state?

    Their state? The federal government?

    If the city/state would benefit, then why shouldn't they? This question just sounds like open-ended fear mongering, like one might hear from a Beck or a Hannity.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    I'm also curious why Maryland would have such a big issue with it when a majority of Maryland's population lives in the areas around DC.
    DC itself isn't exactly in great shape and even if it was politicians are generally wary of introducing a large number of new voters (and with them, new politicians) into their political ecosystem.

    Quoting an old post here but don't you think having its problems and budget handled by a real state, that it itself belongs to, rather then Congress might be a step towards fixing those problems?
    I have no idea. I do know that Maryland does not want to deal with those problems.

    Even if the influx of money coming in would benefit Maryland in the long term?
    They almost certainly wouldn't get enough to pay for DC. And again, there are political concerns here as well.
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Also the states with small populations are rural ones. There isn't a state with a small urban population.
    So? If anything, this is an argument for DC statehood as one could say that there are no Senators that represent exclusively urban interests (well, maybe a couple) but there dozens of Senators that represent exclusively rural interests.

    Because that's not the way the system is designed?
    What system?

    Brian Krakow on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Because DC is supposed to be the home of all the federated states.

    It's in the Constitution.

    They probably should get a Congressman/woman though with a voting share.

    what does "the home of all the federated states" mean?

    I'm not doubting that it was a good idea 250 years ago but now that everyone can vote, a city of 600,000 americans without equal representation is kind of a thing.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.

    Therefore Alaska is not a state, right?

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    What are the negatives of giving DC statehood? Folks keep saying "it is too small" or "it is a bad idea", but I have yet to see anyone explain what bad thing would come of it.

    Is DC able to function without the enormous amount of federal money it receives? Because fuck it if we're going to let that continue if they become a state.

    No, it would not. Which is why the federal government controls it and one of the reasons why it's court system is federal.

    It is not set up like a state and doesn't operate like one in any way shape or form.

    If you turn DC into a state you now have a state sponsored, controlled by, and legally ruled by the Federal government. And you create the problem of having a state that is both a state and the nation at the same time. Furthermore you have just established that congress can now directly control a states functions, which is a constitutional mess.

    nstf on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    Their state? The federal government?

    If the city/state would benefit, then why shouldn't they? This question just sounds like open-ended fear mongering, like one might hear from a Beck or a Hannity.

    You can expect the same argument made by opposers.
    They almost certainly wouldn't get enough to pay for DC. And again, there are political concerns here as well.

    What system?

    Long term gains you're only thinking short term ones.

    The Government?

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    The vatican seems to function just fine as a whole fucking country

    Seriously this arguement makes literally no sense what so fucking ever

    Rent on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.

    Therefore Alaska is not a state, right?

    Alaska has oil.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    What are the negatives of giving DC statehood? Folks keep saying "it is too small" or "it is a bad idea", but I have yet to see anyone explain what bad thing would come of it.

    Is DC able to function without the enormous amount of federal money it receives? Because fuck it if we're going to let that continue if they become a state.

    No, it would not. Which is why the federal government controls it and one of the reasons why it's court system is federal.

    It is not set up like a state and doesn't operate like one in any way shape or form.

    If you turn DC into a state you now have a state sponsored, controlled by, and legally ruled by the Federal government. And you create the problem of having a state that is both a state and the nation at the same time. Furthermore you have just established that congress can now directly control a states functions, which is a constitutional mess.
    If DC becomes a state, then logically DC residents could proceed to elect a state government, and Congress would not longer have to run it. Yes, that would require a Constitutional amendment, but I hear that's happened before.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    If you turn DC into a state you now have a state sponsored, controlled by, and legally ruled by the Federal government.

    No, you don't, because turning DC into a state means giving the State of Columbia the same level of autonomy that other states enjoy, no more, no less.

    No one is advocating for only doing half of the process, and as such, your argument is flawed from conception.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    The vatican seems to function just fine as a whole fucking country

    Seriously this arguement makes literally no sense what so fucking ever


    Yeah they function just fine. Their primary export is pedophiles.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Long term gains you're only thinking short term ones.

    The Government?
    I don't know how you would figure out that Washington DC would eventually be a net gain but at any rate politicians (and voters, really) think almost exclusively in the short term.

    When did the government say that urban areas can't become states?

    Brian Krakow on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.

    Therefore Alaska is not a state, right?

    Alaska has oil.

    Texas has oil, so that's okay. The non-continuous thing means it's not a state, though.

    Hell, We have to get rid of California, too, since before it no states bordered on the Pacific. I mean, what kind of shit is that? The united states touches the Atlantic, not the pacific!

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    also, no Delaware, for the obvious reason.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Long term gains you're only thinking short term ones.

    The Government?
    I don't know how you would figure out that Washington DC would eventually be a net gain but at any rate politicians (and voters, really) think almost exclusively in the short term.

    When did the government say that urban areas can't become states?

    If you don't see how having an urban area with an extremely high tourism rate can turn into a long term net gain I can't help you.

    The design of the Congress, both sides, doesn't make sense to have an urban state.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It'd be a great excuse to move the center of government out to the midwest somewhere.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.

    Therefore Alaska is not a state, right?

    Alaska has oil.

    Texas has oil, so that's okay. The non-continuous thing means it's not a state, though.

    Hell, We have to get rid of California, too, since before it no states bordered on the Pacific. I mean, what kind of shit is that? The united states touches the Atlantic, not the pacific!

    NYC should be its own state before DC. More people, and the residents of the city have virtually nothing in common with the people who live outside it (and in fact hate and resent one another for the most part).

    I mean, as long as we're taking cities and making them into states.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    also, no Delaware, for the obvious reason.

    Kent and Sussex are urban.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Long term gains you're only thinking short term ones.

    The Government?
    I don't know how you would figure out that Washington DC would eventually be a net gain but at any rate politicians (and voters, really) think almost exclusively in the short term.

    When did the government say that urban areas can't become states?

    If you don't see how having an urban area with an extremely high tourism rate can turn into a long term net gain I can't help you.

    You are completely ignoring costs. Also, long terms gains make sense when you have extra money to invest, not when you are already cutting costs to deal with your budget (as MD is right now)
    The design of the Congress, both sides, doesn't make sense to have an urban state.

    Show me how.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    Show me how.

    Assuming you're talking about the latter part of my post, just look at the design.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    NYC should be its own state before DC. More people, and the residents of the city have virtually nothing in common with the people who live outside it (and in fact hate and resent one another for the most part).

    I mean, as long as we're taking cities and making them into states.

    People have been wanting to do that for some time, actually. Just never anywhere near enough people, perhaps because residents of New York City have full voting rights, and thus less of an impetus to separate.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.

    Therefore Alaska is not a state, right?

    Alaska has oil.

    Texas has oil, so that's okay. The non-continuous thing means it's not a state, though.

    Hell, We have to get rid of California, too, since before it no states bordered on the Pacific. I mean, what kind of shit is that? The united states touches the Atlantic, not the pacific!

    NYC should be its own state before DC. More people, and the residents of the city have virtually nothing in common with the people who live outside it (and in fact hate and resent one another for the most part).

    I mean, as long as we're taking cities and making them into states.

    If the residents of NYC want it, I have no issue.

    But DC is first because NYC actually has representation currently. DC doesn't.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    Show me how.

    Assuming you're talking about the latter part of my post, just look at the design.

    I don't see it. If you do, explain it, or else stop making arguments you can't articulate.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    You are completely ignoring costs. Also, long terms gains make sense when you have extra money to invest, not when you are already cutting costs to deal with your budget (as MD is right now)

    Sure, so is every other state currently. This doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for when things get better and look at the best course for it.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.

    Therefore Alaska is not a state, right?

    Alaska has oil.

    Texas has oil, so that's okay. The non-continuous thing means it's not a state, though.

    Hell, We have to get rid of California, too, since before it no states bordered on the Pacific. I mean, what kind of shit is that? The united states touches the Atlantic, not the pacific!

    NYC should be its own state before DC. More people, and the residents of the city have virtually nothing in common with the people who live outside it (and in fact hate and resent one another for the most part).

    I mean, as long as we're taking cities and making them into states.

    If the residents of NYC want it, I have no issue.

    But DC is first because NYC actually has representation currently. DC doesn't.

    Fixed via sucking them into Maryland and doesn't cause the constitutional mess of turning DC into a state. Nor the breakdown the city would have once it lost the federal teet.

    nstf on
  • Options
    RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.

    Therefore Alaska is not a state, right?

    Alaska has oil.

    Texas has oil, so that's okay. The non-continuous thing means it's not a state, though.

    Hell, We have to get rid of California, too, since before it no states bordered on the Pacific. I mean, what kind of shit is that? The united states touches the Atlantic, not the pacific!

    NYC should be its own state before DC. More people, and the residents of the city have virtually nothing in common with the people who live outside it (and in fact hate and resent one another for the most part).

    I mean, as long as we're taking cities and making them into states.

    You're ignoring the point in that NYC has representation

    DC does not

    how is this such a hard concept for you to grasp

    Rent on
  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Long term gains you're only thinking short term ones.

    The Government?
    I don't know how you would figure out that Washington DC would eventually be a net gain but at any rate politicians (and voters, really) think almost exclusively in the short term.

    When did the government say that urban areas can't become states?

    If you don't see how having an urban area with an extremely high tourism rate can turn into a long term net gain I can't help you.

    The design of the Congress, both sides, doesn't make sense to have an urban state.
    It's not a net gain now. Why would it be in the future? And why should politicians care if eventually it becomes a cash cow after they're long retired?

    How so? It makes sense to have rural states, suburban states, combination states, small states, big states, new states, old states, sane states, crazy states, island states, cold states, hot states, crazy states, what makes urban states so special?

    Brian Krakow on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    Show me how.

    Assuming you're talking about the latter part of my post, just look at the design.

    I don't see it. If you do, explain it, or else stop making arguments you can't articulate.

    Have you studied the debates for how Congress should be shaped during its forming?

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    You are completely ignoring costs. Also, long terms gains make sense when you have extra money to invest, not when you are already cutting costs to deal with your budget (as MD is right now)

    Sure, so is every other state currently. This doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for when things get better and look at the best course for it.

    this reminds me so much of McCain's proposed federal budget freeze. "The economy is hurting, so let's kill it entirely, and then perform an autopsy"

    What you are proposing is bad finance

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    Show me how.

    Assuming you're talking about the latter part of my post, just look at the design.

    I don't see it. If you do, explain it, or else stop making arguments you can't articulate.

    Have you studied the debates for how Congress should be shaped during its forming?

    You are avoiding making an actual argument. Is this because you don't have one?

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    You are completely ignoring costs. Also, long terms gains make sense when you have extra money to invest, not when you are already cutting costs to deal with your budget (as MD is right now)

    Sure, so is every other state currently. This doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for when things get better and look at the best course for it.

    this reminds me so much of McCain's proposed federal budget freeze. "The economy is hurting, so let's kill it entirely, and then perform an autopsy"

    What you are proposing is bad finance

    Please show me where I made this form of argument? I actually specifically said moving forward in preparation for, not standing still in opposition of.

    DeShadowC on
Sign In or Register to comment.