Options

Save DC

123468

Posts

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I don't see why MD wouldn't want to absorb DC. States are always trying to increase the number of high-poverty, high-crime metro areas with terrible police/school systems/infrastructure. Who wouldn't want a white elephant?

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    hahaha trying to bring race into this. I am bending over backwards not to mention race

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The idea that Maryland is lacking for cities (brought up earlier, briefly) is rather silly.

    MD has all of the metro area sprawl, plus other cities like Baltimore and Annapolis. MD has cities that are suburbs of other cities, like Frederick.

    MD has everything already. It is not missing cities.

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    You (and others) keep trying to drag race into this

    Right, because race is the ONLY thing that is wrong with Mayor-for-life Barry

    I was referring to
    The people of the district is urban and black. Any congress reps(assuming some kind of city-state status and not full statehood) would be liberal(and black) as a result.
    Sorry, no statehood. Too many black people.

    And other quotes as well. Which is standard for "I don't really have an argument so I'm going to just cism the fuck out it".

    nstf on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    You (and others) keep trying to drag race into this

    Right, because race is the ONLY thing that is wrong with Mayor-for-life Barry

    I was referring to
    The people of the district is urban and black. Any congress reps(assuming some kind of city-state status and not full statehood) would be liberal(and black) as a result.
    Sorry, no statehood. Too many black people.

    And many other quotes as well. Rather than countering arguments, people keep throwing the cism card. Which is standard for "I don't really have an argument so I'm going to just cism the fuck out it".

    which of those quotes was from me again?

    I'm pretty sure when I brought up race, it was in a positive sense, not a negative sense (if DC was full of white people the tea partiers would care about this)



    Why did you quote me if you were refering to other people?

    Evander on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Okay Ntsf what about my argument that the Federal Government already substantially supports state governments. In terms of budget shortfalls, disasters, and just by having military bases in several areas with limited industry. The federal government already is a source of income for several states. Doesn't Alaska get like a 5 to 1 return on tax dollars or something? The argument that DC would be a huge drain just doesn't hold water.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I think I know which two words you guys are all so deathly afraid of:

    "Senator Barry"

    A campaign run on the fact that he is a certified non-felon.

    I'll take Senator Barry over half the GOP delegation. And many of the Democrats. You can probably quit pretending that the only possible objections to D.C. statehood are "lolpublicans" and 'cism.

    Yeah but than you can't stand on a soap box and you'd actually have to have an argument about the constitutional, legal, and financial issues around the situation.

    Which requires you know, thinking about it.

    nstf on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Okay Ntsf what about my argument that the Federal Government already substantially supports state governments. In terms of budget shortfalls, disasters, and just by having military bases in several areas with limited industry. The federal government already is a source of income for several states. Doesn't Alaska get like a 5 to 1 return on tax dollars or something? The argument that DC would be a huge drain just doesn't hold water.

    especially when you consider that, as has been stated, the federal funds going to DC include funds for federal things, like the whitehouse rose garden. A) that particular money is still coming, and B) if it wasn't, it wouldn't hurt DC as a state.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So in other words, DC has been getting screwed for a long time, so it should continue to be screwed.

    Well, more that there's no Constitutional requirement that they not get screwed. Our government isn't fair. See: the Senate, the Electoral College.

    Equal protection under the law demands that people not get legally screwed more than others. Everybody else gets to vote for a representative and two senators, so DC residents should as well.
    There's no case law to support the claim that DC residents are entitled to representation in Congress. This status quo has existed for close to 200 years, so I don't see SCOTUS overturning it any time soon. There are several other territories whose residents are not represented in Congress. There's nothing unconstititional about residents of Territories and other non-state US territory not being represented in Congress.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man, you still haven't given a straight answer on a special status for DC involving a single senator. Obviously the constitution would have to be amended, but assuming that wasn't an issue, would you be opposed to it?

    Evander on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man, you still haven't given a straight answer on a special status for DC involving a single senator. Obviously the constitution would have to be amended, but assuming that wasn't an issue, would you be opposed to it?
    I'd be opposed to it. I don't like the idea of setting up a "half-state." Out system isn't really designed for something that's not quite a state but still gets to elect Senators. It would be a really weird precedent.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Okay, so for whoever asked, MM IS opposed to giving DC senators, not just to it being a state.

    Evander on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I think I know which two words you guys are all so deathly afraid of:

    "Senator Barry"

    A campaign run on the fact that he is a certified non-felon.

    I'm not really afraid of anything. You (and others) keep trying to drag race into this rather than offering up explanations for how you'd amend the issues there are. How DC would govern without the federal government, how you could change the current court system, and how you would deal with the financial issues.

    That's my concern. And until that's fixed, statehood for DC is a non stater.

    Solutions have been offered up with historical precedent for giving DC representation via Maryland that dodge those issues, but you seem hell bent on ignoring them.

    Actually, becoming a state would secure federal funding, not eliminate it. And it's not hard to see why.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    They are going to get federal funding simply due to the fact that most congressman are going to be living and working there for long periods of time.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?
    There is no Constitutional requirement that DC residents be represented in Congress.

    No shit Sherlock that's the problem. "They don't need representation (like everyone else in the country) because they don't have representation... because it's not written down somewhere that they explicitly get representation ergo they don't need representation (like everyone else in the country)..."

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Narian wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?
    There is no Constitutional requirement that DC residents be represented in Congress.

    No shit Sherlock that's the problem. "They don't need representation (like everyone else in the country) because they don't have representation... because it's not written down somewhere that they explicitly get representation ergo they don't need representation (like everyone else in the country)..."
    Except, not everyone else in the country gets representation in Congress. The only people who get represented in Congress are residents of states. Residents of territories and other non-state portions of land under US sovereignty do not get representation in Congress.

    States are the building blocks of the US government. There really is no other type of entity for which there is a mechanism to provide Congressional representation. Unless you want to drastically re-write the Constitution, the only way DC is going to be represented in Congress is if it becomes a state (highly unlikely) or if it can be considered part of Maryland for voting purposes (less unlikely).

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Because when the Constitution was written, we didn't have any territories.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?
    There is no Constitutional requirement that DC residents be represented in Congress.

    No shit Sherlock that's the problem. "They don't need representation (like everyone else in the country) because they don't have representation... because it's not written down somewhere that they explicitly get representation ergo they don't need representation (like everyone else in the country)..."
    Except, not everyone else in the country gets representation in Congress. The only people who get represented in Congress are residents of states. Residents of territories and other non-state portions of land under US sovereignty do not get representation in Congress.

    States are the building blocks of the US government. There really is no other type of entity for which there is a mechanism to provide Congressional representation. Unless you want to drastically re-write the Constitution, the only way DC is going to be represented in Congress is if it becomes a state (highly unlikely) or if it can be considered part of Maryland for voting purposes (less unlikely).

    Yeah because the constitution hasn't been drastically been rewritten before, oh wait it totally has . Cause the constitution isn't a document that can deal with change, oh wait it can. Making DC a state is not nearly as impossible as you are making it out to be.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Because when the Constitution was written, we didn't have any territories.
    The US at the time had quite a bit of unincorporated land east of the Mississippi and west of the established 13 colonies. And as early as 1806, the US picked up a whole shitload of real estate, some of which didn't get incorporated into states for decades.

    People living in the US but not having the right to vote because they didn't live in a state is nothing new. DC is not unique in this regard.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man, beyond the constitutional issues, what is your opposition to DC being a state?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kilroy wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You'd probably have to figure out a way to balance out the creation of 1-2 safe Democratic seats with the same number of safe GOP seats.

    Why?

    Because MM voted republican.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because when the Constitution was written, we didn't have any territories.
    The US at the time had quite a bit of unincorporated land east of the Mississippi and west of the established 13 colonies. And as early as 1806, the US picked up a whole shitload of real estate, some of which didn't get incorporated into states for decades.
    And we acquired that land to make states out of it.
    Modern Man wrote:
    People living in the US but not having the right to vote because they didn't live in a state is nothing new. DC is not unique in this regard.
    It is unique in that people are determined to make that status perpetual.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because when the Constitution was written, we didn't have any territories.
    The US at the time had quite a bit of unincorporated land east of the Mississippi and west of the established 13 colonies. And as early as 1806, the US picked up a whole shitload of real estate, some of which didn't get incorporated into states for decades.
    And we acquired that land to make states out of it.
    Modern Man wrote:
    People living in the US but not having the right to vote because they didn't live in a state is nothing new. DC is not unique in this regard.
    It is unique in that people are determined to make that status perpetual.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Modern Man, beyond the constitutional issues, what is your opposition to DC being a state?
    Modern Man wrote: »
    And on the point of why DC doesn't have the qualities to be a state- it is too small, population and geography-wise. In terms of population, I know there is one smaller state and several around the same time. Howevever, those are mostly historical anachronisms that were made states in a time when their tiny populations weren't as much of an issue. If we were drawing the state boundaries from scratch, Wyoming, Vermont and other such people-free states would most likely be merged into neighboring states. I doubt we would let them into the union as their own states.

    In terms of geography, if you made DC a state it would be the only wholly urban state in the union. All of the other states are mini-countries in their own right (not so mini in the case of California, Texas, New York etc.) They're made up of urban, rural and suburban areas. Their economies are made up of different sectors, such as agriculture, manufacturing and service industries.

    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    The only way DC could become a state would be as part of a general re-organization of the boundaries of the existing states. You'd split NYC from upstate NY, split California and Texas into maybe 3 states each, merge Rhode Island and Vermont into their neighbors and so on. But that's never going to happen.

    Basically, DC is too small and too centered around one industry to be a state. Puerto Rico is better-qualified to be a state, except for the fact that a significant percentage of its population does not speak English and it is too poor compared to the US as a whole to fit in.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Modern Man, beyond the constitutional issues, what is your opposition to DC being a state?
    Modern Man wrote: »
    And on the point of why DC doesn't have the qualities to be a state- it is too small, population and geography-wise. In terms of population, I know there is one smaller state and several around the same time. Howevever, those are mostly historical anachronisms that were made states in a time when their tiny populations weren't as much of an issue. If we were drawing the state boundaries from scratch, Wyoming, Vermont and other such people-free states would most likely be merged into neighboring states. I doubt we would let them into the union as their own states.

    In terms of geography, if you made DC a state it would be the only wholly urban state in the union. All of the other states are mini-countries in their own right (not so mini in the case of California, Texas, New York etc.) They're made up of urban, rural and suburban areas. Their economies are made up of different sectors, such as agriculture, manufacturing and service industries.

    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    The only way DC could become a state would be as part of a general re-organization of the boundaries of the existing states. You'd split NYC from upstate NY, split California and Texas into maybe 3 states each, merge Rhode Island and Vermont into their neighbors and so on. But that's never going to happen.

    Basically, DC is too small and too centered around one industry to be a state. Puerto Rico is better-qualified to be a state, except for the fact that a significant percentage of its population does not speak English and it is too poor compared to the US as a whole to fit in.

    Its bigger than an existing state population wise and I don't see how having a narrow economy means they shouldn't get equal representation.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2010
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    they have their own baseball team though

    The Generals? :)

    Doc on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Modern Man, beyond the constitutional issues, what is your opposition to DC being a state?
    Modern Man wrote: »
    And on the point of why DC doesn't have the qualities to be a state- it is too small, population and geography-wise. In terms of population, I know there is one smaller state and several around the same time. Howevever, those are mostly historical anachronisms that were made states in a time when their tiny populations weren't as much of an issue. If we were drawing the state boundaries from scratch, Wyoming, Vermont and other such people-free states would most likely be merged into neighboring states. I doubt we would let them into the union as their own states.

    In terms of geography, if you made DC a state it would be the only wholly urban state in the union. All of the other states are mini-countries in their own right (not so mini in the case of California, Texas, New York etc.) They're made up of urban, rural and suburban areas. Their economies are made up of different sectors, such as agriculture, manufacturing and service industries.

    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    The only way DC could become a state would be as part of a general re-organization of the boundaries of the existing states. You'd split NYC from upstate NY, split California and Texas into maybe 3 states each, merge Rhode Island and Vermont into their neighbors and so on. But that's never going to happen.

    Basically, DC is too small and too centered around one industry to be a state. Puerto Rico is better-qualified to be a state, except for the fact that a significant percentage of its population does not speak English and it is too poor compared to the US as a whole to fit in.

    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms agaisnt the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states , if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?

    Edit: Also not to derail but how does the fact that a significant part of the population of Peurto Rico not being able to speak English manifest it as a knock against statehood?

    I am trying very hard not to bring race into this, but the thing is starting to speak for itself.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    How did big chunks of DC get to be so poor in the first place? What's the surrounding situation that led to it?

    Duffel on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms against the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states, if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?
    Many of those states are still trying to disobey federal law.

    Duffel, the main reason is that Congress has never really given a shit about the parts of DC it doesn't have to see.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms agaisnt the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states , if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?
    Aren't we talking about whether DC has what it takes to be a state? That's sort of the issue when we're deciding to admit another state to the union.

    Knowing what we know now, I don't think Wyoming should have been admitted as a state. The Dakotas should have been admitted as one state, Vermont should have remained part of New Hampshire, Alaska should have remained a territory and so on. The fact that we have some really small states that were admitted to the union is mostly a historical anachronism. I don't see a reason to compound those errors by adding another tiny state.
    Duffel wrote: »
    How did big chunks of DC get to be so poor in the first place? What's the surrounding situation that led to it?
    Same reasons other cities have poverty issues. Breakdown in families, terrible school systems, drugs etc.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms agaisnt the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states , if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?
    Aren't we talking about whether DC has what it takes to be a state? That's sort of the issue when we're deciding to admit another state to the union.

    Knowing what we know now, I don't think Wyoming should have been admitted as a state. The Dakotas should have been admitted as one state, Vermont should have remained part of New Hampshire, Alaska should have remained a territory and so on. The fact that we have some really small states that were admitted to the union is mostly a historical anachronism. I don't see a reason to compound those errors by adding another tiny state.

    How is a common occurrence a historical anachronism, it sounds like precedent to me.

    Also, just so I am clear taking up arms against your government, disobeying federal law, to do this day talking about the south shall rise again, having very limited industry = Totally what it takes to be a state.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Um, why didn't Vermont deserve independence?

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »

    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms agaisnt the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states , if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?

    Just for the sake of accuracy, the states in the confederacy didn't regain representation immediately, and states are constantly violating federal laws. Google United States v STATENAME and you'll find bunches of court cases over various things. Flip it around and you have states suing the government over violating federal laws/ the constitution.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So I guess the question is why does MM have such a problem with representation?

    I've seriously never heard anyone complain that there were two Dakotas, seriously WTF does it matter? Did South Dakota run over your dog or something?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »

    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms agaisnt the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states , if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?

    Just for the sake of accuracy, the states in the confederacy didn't regain representation immediately, and states are constantly violating federal laws. Google United States v STATENAME and you'll find bunches of court cases over various things. Flip it around and you have states suing the government over violating federal laws/ the constitution.

    A. He never said they got their Congresscritters back right away.
    B. Committing treason is a bit more serious than simply arguing.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Duffel wrote: »
    How did big chunks of DC get to be so poor in the first place? What's the surrounding situation that led to it?

    Mostly white flight. And many areas people haven't wanted to move back into. What is slowly happening is gentrification. The nice areas of DC now resemble Chevy Chase and Arlington, and it's the same demographic. The areas around those are slowly rising in value pushing the poor people farther east and into Maryland PG county.

    The gap between NW and SE is staggering. Now, they are trying to raise values through the roof in SE, and it's slowly happening. But it's going to take a long time to fix everything.
    Actually, becoming a state would secure federal funding, not eliminate it. And it's not hard to see why.

    DC already gets federal funding like a state does. In addition, DC gets more funding as a federal district. It's really milking it. If it becomes a state it can kiss that other funding goodbye.

    nstf on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »

    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms agaisnt the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states , if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?

    Just for the sake of accuracy, the states in the confederacy didn't regain representation immediately, and states are constantly violating federal laws. Google United States v STATENAME and you'll find bunches of court cases over various things. Flip it around and you have states suing the government over violating federal laws/ the constitution.

    Yeah but a case against a state is a bit different than the comprehensive, coordinated campaign against integration. Just for the sake of accuracy.

    Oh and reconstruction totally lasted and the southern states were set straight oh wait they weren't. See Jim Crow.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So I guess the question is why does MM have such a problem with representation?

    I've seriously never heard anyone complain that there were two Dakotas, seriously WTF does it matter? Did South Dakota run over your dog or something?
    I don't have a probelm with representation. I just don't think DC has what it takes to be a state.

    As for the Dakotas and other small states- if we were carving up the US, as it is today, into 50 states (or whatever number), I doubt anyone would look at the Dakotas and decide they should each be their own individual state. They'd either be merged, or the area would be divided among other states. give part to Nebraska, part to Minnesota or whatever.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So I guess the question is why does MM have such a problem with representation?

    I've seriously never heard anyone complain that there were two Dakotas, seriously WTF does it matter? Did South Dakota run over your dog or something?

    go find the old Abolish the Senate thread. Its basically nothing but a bunch of bitching about Wyoming/Montana/and the Dakotas being over represent in the senate. Making DC a city would just add another to the list.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So I guess the question is why does MM have such a problem with representation?

    I've seriously never heard anyone complain that there were two Dakotas, seriously WTF does it matter? Did South Dakota run over your dog or something?
    I don't have a probelm with representation. I just don't think DC has what it takes to be a state.

    As for the Dakotas and other small states- if we were carving up the US, as it is today, into 50 states (or whatever number), I doubt anyone would look at the Dakotas and decide they should each be their own individual state. They'd either be merged, or the area would be divided among other states. give part to Nebraska, part to Minnesota or whatever.

    So how would you give them full representation as enjoyed by the states without being a state? And I'm still curious how your requirements are anything other than arbitrary.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.