D.C. Statehood

[Pyperkub]

The House of Representatives is NOT operating as designed. I've lost about 97% of my representation from what was originally specified "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;"

You think the House is the problem?!? I mean it could use more representatives but that is like the smallest problem in the pile.

It would fix the House gerrymandering problem.

FWIW, I'm glad ND is putting forward some arguments against Statehood. I don't agree, but I'm glad they are here and we're being mostly reasonable about it.

[Smoove_B]

I'm still trying to parse the collective reasons against it (so yeah, alternative viewpoints are appreciated), but at their core it seems to boil down to:

(1) The Founding Fathers(tm) didn't want it, amen
(2) This would change the balance in Congress and we can't have that

While I get that it's always been a topic for discussion, if ever there as going to be a time for it to change, I'd think that time is now, which is why we're hearing about it. The fact that it also helps to address the GOPs assault on democracy nationwide (figurative and literal), is a bonus.

[LawBeefaroni]

Note: if this were to happen, they would have about 2.5 times more representation ... just in the House ... than I would.

If representation is important to you, you could move to Wyoming.

Right. It's not. But if it were; I would.

If congress removed your community's ability to vote for a Representative and Senators, and you were offered the option of losing it or moving ten miles to regain it, would you say "no big deal"?

When did anyone living in DC lose this ability? No one removed their ability to vote for Congress.

[Unagi]

I’m not sure the drinking water in Flint MI was ever safe to drink.

[Defiant]

Note: if this were to happen, they would have about 2.5 times more representation ... just in the House ... than I would.

If representation is important to you, you could move to Wyoming.

Right. It's not. But if it were; I would.

If congress removed your community's ability to vote for a Representative and Senators, and you were offered the option of losing it or moving ten miles to regain it, would you say "no big deal"?

When did anyone living in DC lose this ability? No one removed their ability to vote for Congress.

Technically, anyone living in the location prior to the formation of the capitol went through this scenario.

But the point was to try to offer a similar choice to those living in DC.

[Grifman]

Nobody is suggesting pick up and move. We're suggesting that over the course of their life, if that is it was important to them, maybe they would have moved to the suburbs.

No citizen should have to move to be represented in Congress.

[Grifman]

I'm against using flavor of the month rules to fix government. It's a slippery slope. If the supreme court is expanded under Biden, what do you think is going to happen next time the Republicans have a majority?

If we make DC a state, couldn't you divide Texas in 5?

Giving people who don't have representation in Congress is not the same as splitting a state where they already have such representation.

[noxiousdog]

Nobody is suggesting pick up and move. We're suggesting that over the course of their life, if that is it was important to them, maybe they would have moved to the suburbs.

No citizen should have to move to be represented in Congress.

17 year olds are citizens? What about Puerto Ricans?

FWIW, I'm for Puerto Rican statehood if they want it.

Laws are only written because that's what the people in power wanted at the time. It's pretty arbitrary. I honestly don't know if I care that much beyond the motivation.

If I thought y'all really cared about the voting rights of Washington D.C. folks, then I'd be much more supportive. I'm skeptical since I've been on this forum for 20 years and it's never come up before except when we are coming up with ways to rapidly change the government.

[Kraken]

So the 1/6 riot and state Republicans responding to it by working to dismantle protections against state legislatures overriding the voting results has made you *less* concerned?

It's not binary.

Of course the 1/6 riot is an issue. It's how we respond to it. Currently, there's a whole lot of folks going to jail, and there needs to be a commission to find out what went wrong. IMO, it's a MUCH bigger issue than a commission to pack the Supreme Court.

Georgia is another problem, but the popular response... including corporate response ... has been heartening. In Texas, Matthew McConaughey is polling well ahead of Abbott.

The GOP is behaving like a beaten group. If there is a big shift in the mid-terms, I reserve the right to change my mind. But right now, being extreme doesn't strike me as the best move.

Look, in any event the key parts of this are these: (1) D.C. is a distinct place with its own history and identity, separate from that of Maryland or Virginia; (2) citizens of D.C. deserve representation, and there's no compelling reason to deny representation to U.S. citizens based on where in the country they choose to live; (3) that Democrats favor statehood, and Republicans oppose it, in part for partisan reasons, doesn't provide a compelling reason to deny D.C. statehood.

That the GOP is in the process of pushing haphazardly for cemented minority rule is in some ways a side issue, but it is another reason to favor statehood.

If the GOP is open to giving DCians representation, why not let them decide between assimilation and statehood via plebiscite? Is there a legal mechanism whereby Congress could be bound by the result?

Political power plays are dumb regardless of which party is engaging in them.

This has absolutely no chance of happening, so let's get back to focusing on what's actually possible.

Actually, this feels to me like a rare historical moment when real change is possible. It's unlikely, sure, but only impossible because of the filibuster, which is also on the table.

[Holman]

This thread is useless without comparative real-estate values for inner-D.C. and the suburbs.

I'm wondering if "just move to a different neighborhood" is as easy as it sounds.

[The Meal]

This thread is useless without comparative real-estate values for inner-D.C. and the suburbs.

I'm wondering if "just move to a different neighborhood" is as easy as it sounds.

Dear holy Jesus, let that not be the central theme of this thread.

Though it would be the solution to many of society's ills. Don't like gang/gun violence in your neighborhood? Just move. (Want move of it? We've got places for you people to live as well!)

Covid responses.

Education levels.

Job opportunities. (This one is eminently familiar to many of us posting on OO, not an insignificant number of whom likely *have* moved to seek out job opportunities. Now reflect on how that is possible for this general segment of society versus D.C. residents.)

Brilliant!

~*~*~

To get back on the actual thread topic, I'm on board with D.C. statehood purely for representation purposes: representation of the majority of US voters. When I was last in D.C. I laughed at the tag line of their license plates (though I did feel a pang for the sentiment). I do agree there are other US territories which make *more* sense for statehood (P.R. > D.C. > USVI > Guam > A.Samoa | N.Mariana). I don't hold to the idea of increasing our state count as a radical change (if TX or CA wants to "break up" to improve their representation calculus, I'm on board with those as well, even if for exclusively that purpose). I do agree that a larger number of representatives would have a significant effect on congress, and move things, I believe, in a beneficial direction (though I'm open to finding out that is not the actual case — I just think it's such a effective way to address gerrymandering, and I don't think there's a lot to lose, capability-wise, by bringing in the next tier of politician; as a sports comparison, I don't see their being a big difference between our current Representatives vs. the value of Replacement Representatives who're currently languishing in the House Minor Leagues. And finally I don't see larger blocks of humans making the sausage becoming too much friction in the system to accomplish their goals -- as it stands one or two non-politically-aligned persons can significantly gum up the works but if we create many more of these positions at a better representation level for their populace, then I'd anticipate *more* of these rogue elements within a party, and I think the net effect is better blanket coverage of more folks' wants as opposed to what-the-party-dictates.) (Whew.)

[Blackhawk]

Side note on that: I'd love to eventually see a 'COVID response rating' for states, counties, and cities across the country to be used as a metric for deciding where to move along with cost of living, education ratings, and so forth. It would be a great way to rank locations on common sense, compassion, and reason.

[Smoove_B]

Side note on that: I'd love to eventually see a 'COVID response rating' for states, counties, and cities across the country to be used as a metric for deciding where to move along with cost of living, education ratings, and so forth. It would be a great way to rank locations on common sense, compassion, and reason.

It's not exactly what you're looking for, but a non-profit organization started ~20 years ago as a way to centralize information about public health issues in each state. They release reports (usually annual) about trends and how states are doing. They did just release a summary for COVID-19 response here. Again, it's not just about COVID-19 but a state's overall infrastructure and preparedness to be able to respond to something like COVID.

Home page is Trust For America's Health

I don't see them mentioned often or widely (reasons unknown), but they do track all sorts of useful data, maybe even for you in Indiana.

[Blackhawk]

I don't see them mentioned often or widely (reasons unknown), but they do track all sorts of useful data, maybe even for you in Indiana.

We scored three out of ten! Hell yeah! Take that... um...

(I was actually going to find a state that scored lower and mock them here, but I can't find any states lower than a three. Go team?)

[Lorini]

Keep in mind that Washington DC has the largest Black population (percentage wise) of anywhere other than Africa. So in some ways there could be some racism going on here as well.

I have a new and novel idea: Have the Republicans repudiate their racist supporters and actually become a party a Black person with intelligence could consider voting for. Problem fixed.

[pr0ner]

This thread is useless without comparative real-estate values for inner-D.C. and the suburbs.

I'm wondering if "just move to a different neighborhood" is as easy as it sounds.

I'll boil it down to two words: it's not.

[$iljanus]

This thread is useless without comparative real-estate values for inner-D.C. and the suburbs.

I'm wondering if "just move to a different neighborhood" is as easy as it sounds.

I'll boil it down to two words: it's not.

And from someone who has lived on both sides of the Potomac, I’ll even boil it down further to one word...no.

[Grifman]

Nobody is suggesting pick up and move. We're suggesting that over the course of their life, if that is it was important to them, maybe they would have moved to the suburbs.

No citizen should have to move to be represented in Congress.

17 year olds are citizens?

What does this have to do with anything?

What about Puerto Ricans?

Puerto Rico can apply for statehood as they have always been able to. Up until this point, most Puerto Ricans have preferred status quo per several votes on the issue. DC is a different case because it has no formal way of petitioning for a change in status.

If I thought y'all really cared about the voting rights of Washington D.C. folks, then I'd be much more supportive. I'm skeptical since I've been on this forum for 20 years and it's never come up before except when we are coming up with ways to rapidly change the government.

This has been discussed for years in political circles, and even well known Republicans were for it - heck, even long time racist Strom Thurmond supported it back in the 70's:

[noxiousdog]

This has been discussed for years in political circles, and even well known Republicans were for it - heck, even long time racist Strom Thurmond supported it back in the 70's:

Just because it has been discussed doesn't make it a priority issue.

Think how many pages of universal basic income discussion or marijuana legalization or student debt as compared to DC discussion.

[Grifman]

This has been discussed for years in political circles, and even well known Republicans were for it - heck, even long time racist Strom Thurmond supported it back in the 70's:

Just because it has been discussed doesn't make it a priority issue.

What does being a "priority" have to do with anything? Laws get passed all the time that many do not think are "priorities" compared with other issues.

Think how many pages of universal basic income discussion or marijuana legalization or student debt as compared to DC discussion.

Why is the number of pages of discussion here or anywhere else even relevant to whether DC should be granted statehood?

This is a really weird argument to be making. "Oooh, this isn't as important as other issues based upon page count, therefore we shouldn't be doing anything about it!"

[El Guapo]

So the 1/6 riot and state Republicans responding to it by working to dismantle protections against state legislatures overriding the voting results has made you *less* concerned?

It's not binary.

Of course the 1/6 riot is an issue. It's how we respond to it. Currently, there's a whole lot of folks going to jail, and there needs to be a commission to find out what went wrong. IMO, it's a MUCH bigger issue than a commission to pack the Supreme Court.

Georgia is another problem, but the popular response... including corporate response ... has been heartening. In Texas, Matthew McConaughey is polling well ahead of Abbott.

The GOP is behaving like a beaten group. If there is a big shift in the mid-terms, I reserve the right to change my mind. But right now, being extreme doesn't strike me as the best move.

Look, in any event the key parts of this are these: (1) D.C. is a distinct place with its own history and identity, separate from that of Maryland or Virginia; (2) citizens of D.C. deserve representation, and there's no compelling reason to deny representation to U.S. citizens based on where in the country they choose to live; (3) that Democrats favor statehood, and Republicans oppose it, in part for partisan reasons, doesn't provide a compelling reason to deny D.C. statehood.

That the GOP is in the process of pushing haphazardly for cemented minority rule is in some ways a side issue, but it is another reason to favor statehood.

If the GOP is open to giving DCians representation, why not let them decide between assimilation and statehood via plebiscite? Is there a legal mechanism whereby Congress could be bound by the result?

Political power plays are dumb regardless of which party is engaging in them.

This has absolutely no chance of happening, so let's get back to focusing on what's actually possible.

Actually, this feels to me like a rare historical moment when real change is possible. It's unlikely, sure, but only impossible because of the filibuster, which is also on the table.

Not a bad idea, actually. A referendum for D.C. voters where they choose between statehood, absorption into Maryland, or the status quo.

[noxiousdog]

Why is the number of pages of discussion here or anywhere else even relevant to whether DC should be granted statehood?

This is a really weird argument to be making. "Oooh, this isn't as important as other issues based upon page count, therefore we shouldn't be doing anything about it!"

I'm making a point about motive. I believe that the idea is more about getting more Democratic senators that curing injustice.

DC wasn't capriciously made a non-state. It was discussed. It was designed. Two states gave up land to make it happen. Along a river at that. That's pretty valuable land.

Ergo, if we are going to change that, I'm curious about the motivations when weighing the arguments.

There's actually a really strong one that folks here haven't mentioned. DC residents must pay federal taxes. This is not true of the US territories that have often been brought up.

[Holman]

I'm making a point about motive. I believe that the idea is more about getting more Democratic senators that curing injustice.

Why not both? DC residents have apparently wanted statehood for a long time. Residents of territories wanting statehood is how most of the post-original states entered the Union. And you can be sure that no new state's entry was ever made without consideration of the senate.

DC wasn't capriciously made a non-state. It was discussed. It was designed. Two states gave up land to make it happen. Along a river at that. That's pretty valuable land.

Very few people lived in the district territory at the time. Now it is home to more citizens than lived in any of the original 13 states (except Virginia, which was only slightly more populous than DC today).

There's actually a really strong one that folks here haven't mentioned. DC residents must pay federal taxes. This is not true of the US territories that have often been brought up.

I believe the Founders had thoughts about taxation without representation.

[Zarathud]

DC was created as a territory by political compromise. It can become a state by the same process.

[noxiousdog]

Very few people lived in the district territory at the time. Now it is home to more citizens than lived in any of the original 13 states (except Virginia, which was only slightly more populous than DC today).

We probably need a few more nations then too

[Exodor]

We probably need a few more nations then too

The constitution is comically broken and undemocratic. I'd be happy for the west coast to break off while the south continues their progress toward Gilead.

[noxiousdog]

We probably need a few more nations then too

The constitution is comically broken and undemocratic. I'd be happy for the west coast to break off while the south continues their progress toward Gilead.

Let's go with that.

Of the 195 countries in the world, I would assume that "comically broken and undemocratic" must be in the bottom 25%. Who do you think is more broken?

[malchior]

Let's go with that.

Of the 195 countries in the world, I would assume that "comically broken and undemocratic" must be in the bottom 25%. Who do you think is more broken?

Instead of comparing us to every nation in the world why not bound it back in something more useful? We're likely in the bottom 5-10% of democracies compared to other advanced economies (that are actually democracies). Off the top of my head, Hungary and Poland are probably worse off but they are just only slightly ahead of us down the path of Conservative authoritarianism.

[noxiousdog]

Let's go with that.

Of the 195 countries in the world, I would assume that "comically broken and undemocratic" must be in the bottom 25%. Who do you think is more broken?

Instead of comparing us to every nation in the world why not bound it back in something more useful? We're likely in the bottom 5-10% of democracies compared to other advanced economies (that are actually democracies). Off the top of my head, Hungary and Poland are probably worse off but they are just only slightly ahead of us down the path of Conservative authoritarianism.

Can we try something a little more objective? or is the Economist too biased?

[ImLawBoy]

Why is the number of pages of discussion here or anywhere else even relevant to whether DC should be granted statehood?

This is a really weird argument to be making. "Oooh, this isn't as important as other issues based upon page count, therefore we shouldn't be doing anything about it!"

I'm making a point about motive. I believe that the idea is more about getting more Democratic senators that curing injustice.

The point is kind of silly for a couple of reasons. First, most acknowledge that a motivator is getting two more D Senators to help offset the imbalance that sparsely populated R states have given the Republicans. Second, if it's a good idea for other reasons, does it really matter what the motivation is? And if motivation is a factor, shouldn't the D motivation be offset by the R motivation to keep the status quo, which is that they don't want two more D Senators?

DC wasn't capriciously made a non-state. It was discussed. It was designed. Two states gave up land to make it happen. Along a river at that. That's pretty valuable land.

There were lots of things back then that were discussed and designed, but that's not a compelling reason in and of itself why the status quo should remain. It was made a non-state for reasons that no longer apply. One is slavery-related compromise. The other is the idea that having the capital in a state would give that state too much influence over the capital. 250 years ago, this made sense as physical proximity to the capital was a big deal. Now it's kind of silly to think that a state of DC would have more influence than TX just because it's closer.

I get that you're interested in the motivations for it, but you should also focus on the motivations against it. You've accused others of being disingenuous in their motivations for supporting DC statehood, but I'd argue that some arguments you've raised are just as disingenuous. The biggest one here is the timing issue you've raised again and again. Why is it happening now when it wasn't a big deal before? It was a big deal before, and people have tried for years to get statehood for DC. Hell, how long have they had those license plates? It's being discussed more now because it has the best chance of happening now than it's had in ages. Just like other issues that bubble around but only rise to forefront when there's the potential political capital to make it happen.

[noxiousdog]

I get that you're interested in the motivations for it, but you should also focus on the motivations against it. You've accused others of being disingenuous in their motivations for supporting DC statehood, but I'd argue that some arguments you've raised are just as disingenuous. The biggest one here is the timing issue you've raised again and again. Why is it happening now when it wasn't a big deal before? It was a big deal before, and people have tried for years to get statehood for DC. Hell, how long have they had those license plates? It's being discussed more now because it has the best chance of happening now than it's had in ages. Just like other issues that bubble around but only rise to forefront when there's the potential political capital to make it happen.

I'm being so disingenuous, I raised, in my opinion, the strongest argument for it. "DC residents must pay federal taxes. This is not true of the US territories that have often been brought up."

[ImLawBoy]

I get that you're interested in the motivations for it, but you should also focus on the motivations against it. You've accused others of being disingenuous in their motivations for supporting DC statehood, but I'd argue that some arguments you've raised are just as disingenuous. The biggest one here is the timing issue you've raised again and again. Why is it happening now when it wasn't a big deal before? It was a big deal before, and people have tried for years to get statehood for DC. Hell, how long have they had those license plates? It's being discussed more now because it has the best chance of happening now than it's had in ages. Just like other issues that bubble around but only rise to forefront when there's the potential political capital to make it happen.

I'm being so disingenuous, I raised, in my opinion, the strongest argument for it. "DC residents must pay federal taxes. This is not true of the US territories that have often been brought up."

Raising one good argument for it doesn't negate the disingenuous nature of other arguments.

[malchior]

Let's go with that.

Of the 195 countries in the world, I would assume that "comically broken and undemocratic" must be in the bottom 25%. Who do you think is more broken?

Instead of comparing us to every nation in the world why not bound it back in something more useful? We're likely in the bottom 5-10% of democracies compared to other advanced economies (that are actually democracies). Off the top of my head, Hungary and Poland are probably worse off but they are just only slightly ahead of us down the path of Conservative authoritarianism.

Can we try something a little more objective? or is the Economist too biased?

No but that doesn't seem to dispute what I said (which was to compare us to advanced economies). They say Italy and Portugal are worse. I'd dispute that but fine. It also doesn't cover the recent period changes where our rankings are going to tank. Press freedom is going to take a huge hit, governance is going to take a huge hit, etc. The trend line has been steadily worsening based on their metrics too which seems to reflect reality.

[noxiousdog]

I get that you're interested in the motivations for it, but you should also focus on the motivations against it. You've accused others of being disingenuous in their motivations for supporting DC statehood, but I'd argue that some arguments you've raised are just as disingenuous. The biggest one here is the timing issue you've raised again and again. Why is it happening now when it wasn't a big deal before? It was a big deal before, and people have tried for years to get statehood for DC. Hell, how long have they had those license plates? It's being discussed more now because it has the best chance of happening now than it's had in ages. Just like other issues that bubble around but only rise to forefront when there's the potential political capital to make it happen.

I'm being so disingenuous, I raised, in my opinion, the strongest argument for it. "DC residents must pay federal taxes. This is not true of the US territories that have often been brought up."

Raising one good argument for it doesn't negate the disingenuous nature of other arguments.

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it disingenuous.

[noxiousdog]

No but that doesn't seem to dispute what I said (which was to compare us to advanced economies). They say Italy and Portugal are worse. I'd dispute that but fine. It also doesn't cover the recent period changes where our rankings are going to tank. Press freedom is going to take a huge hit, governance is going to take a huge hit, etc. The trend line has been steadily worsening based on their metrics too which seems to reflect reality.

Indeed. But I think we should acknowledge that slightly flawed is a far cry from comically broken.

[Smoove_B]

Even if the end result of all this is that D.C. impacts Congress in a way that the GOP doesn't like, I am not finding other arguments against statehood compelling at all. Instead, it's the opposite - that there's more reasons (outside of Congress) that would suggest D.C. should be is own state at this point. The fact that numerous issues (political, social, logistical) elements convene, doesn't make one of them disingenuous.

But seriously, is anyone other than the GOP or "independents" railing against D.C. statehood? Is there a hard core society of apolitical militant Constitutional scholars that are against this, for reasons?

[ImLawBoy]

I get that you're interested in the motivations for it, but you should also focus on the motivations against it. You've accused others of being disingenuous in their motivations for supporting DC statehood, but I'd argue that some arguments you've raised are just as disingenuous. The biggest one here is the timing issue you've raised again and again. Why is it happening now when it wasn't a big deal before? It was a big deal before, and people have tried for years to get statehood for DC. Hell, how long have they had those license plates? It's being discussed more now because it has the best chance of happening now than it's had in ages. Just like other issues that bubble around but only rise to forefront when there's the potential political capital to make it happen.

I'm being so disingenuous, I raised, in my opinion, the strongest argument for it. "DC residents must pay federal taxes. This is not true of the US territories that have often been brought up."

Raising one good argument for it doesn't negate the disingenuous nature of other arguments.

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it disingenuous.

Sorry, I assumed you were aware of the history of the push for DC statehood and how issues that have been brewing for a long while can suddenly surface. If you were, then I'd say your argument about timing of the current push is accurately stated as disingenuous. If not, then my apologies. My labeling has nothing to do with the flaws of the argument.

This is why I think you guys, with the exception of malchior ... and I know he's spoken to this before, are being completely disingenuous. Want to fix representation problems? Fix the Representatives:citizen problem.

Was this you just not liking the argument?

[El Guapo]

Even if the end result of all this is that D.C. impacts Congress in a way that the GOP doesn't like, I am not finding other arguments against statehood compelling at all. Instead, it's the opposite - that there's more reasons (outside of Congress) that would suggest D.C. should be is own state at this point. The fact that numerous issues (political, social, logistical) elements convene, doesn't make one of them disingenuous.

But seriously, is anyone other than the GOP or "independents" railing against D.C. statehood? Is there a hard core society of apolitical militant Constitutional scholars that are against this, for reasons?

I think it's bordering on undeniable that denying representation to U.S. citizens because they happen to live within DC is unfair and unreasonable.

FWIW I will freely admit that retroceding D.C. into Maryland or Virginia is another way to solve that representation problem, and that my main preference for statehood is to get two additional Democratic senators. At the same time, I do think that the argument for statehood is marginally more compelling than retrocession setting aside the political implications, just because D.C. does have its own history and identity, and because there's no compelling reason for why it shouldn't be its own state.

[malchior]

Indeed. But I think we should acknowledge that slightly flawed is a far cry from comically broken.

Sure but I mean it's all in perspective. We aren't like Belgium who ranked far lower which took over a year to build a coalition government. However their caretaker government did little harm. And importantly the Belgians didn't have a party try to overturn an election and storm their parliament. Which is worse? *Shrug*

I could do the same dance all around these tiny little European nations but in the end I think it's important to think of us in different terms. We're easily the most fractured advanced economy. Considering the scale and importance for world leadership and stability maybe I'd serve up an alternative to comically broken and instead substitute tragically broken. Not trying to move goal posts but more that's how I think of this. Are we terrible compared to the world? No but if we break it'll be one of most important events in human history.

[noxiousdog]

I get that you're interested in the motivations for it, but you should also focus on the motivations against it. You've accused others of being disingenuous in their motivations for supporting DC statehood, but I'd argue that some arguments you've raised are just as disingenuous. The biggest one here is the timing issue you've raised again and again. Why is it happening now when it wasn't a big deal before? It was a big deal before, and people have tried for years to get statehood for DC. Hell, how long have they had those license plates? It's being discussed more now because it has the best chance of happening now than it's had in ages. Just like other issues that bubble around but only rise to forefront when there's the potential political capital to make it happen.

I'm being so disingenuous, I raised, in my opinion, the strongest argument for it. "DC residents must pay federal taxes. This is not true of the US territories that have often been brought up."

Raising one good argument for it doesn't negate the disingenuous nature of other arguments.

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it disingenuous.

Sorry, I assumed you were aware of the history of the push for DC statehood and how issues that have been brewing for a long while can suddenly surface. If you were, then I'd say your argument about timing of the current push is accurately stated as disingenuous. If not, then my apologies. My labeling has nothing to do with the flaws of the argument.

This is why I think you guys, with the exception of malchior ... and I know he's spoken to this before, are being completely disingenuous. Want to fix representation problems? Fix the Representatives:citizen problem.

Was this you just not liking the argument?

No, because I don't believe that the folks on this forum have actively been treating it as an important issue. If it were not for the senate implications, it would go right back on the not important pile. My apologies to those who have been having conversations about it for decades.