Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 308: The Board Eight Autonomous Topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

MoogleKupo141 posted...

this goes both ways. maybe the conservatives only oppose it because it would hurt them in elections.

pretend for a moment that we dont know which way DC would vote... Whats the actual argument against it being a state?

My argument against it being a state is that the people for or against it are solely for it's political advantage of disadvantage. That's enough to tell me it is a bad idea.

---

Corrik7 posted...

My argument against it being a state is that the people for or against it are solely for it's political advantage of disadvantage. That's enough to tell me it is a bad idea.

Answer his actual question, maybe?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Same here. Like I'm sure some of the "split CA" propositions would give more Dem Senators, but I'd be against those (and in general I'm very against things like packing the court that may give a temporary partisan advantage but encourage a back-and-forth of escalation). There's no excuse for the citizens of DC not having (voting) representation in Congress.

I support split CA even if it increases the number of Dem senators. There's just no reason such different and far places need be under one state.

---

My understanding was that most of the "split CA" ideas were right wing/libertarian fantasy proposals out of Silicon Valley designed to either: actually benefit the GOP on the whole, or try to establish Silicon Valley as like some objectivist dystopia.

but i repeat myself

That's all besides the point though. DC is a representation issue. That's why it's something that needs to be addressed with statehood. Same is true for all the other territories the US still maintains (why do we maintain territories still) like PR, Guam, etc. But with those I think the residents there should decide whether they want statehood, independence, or whatever else first.

---

Corrik7 posted...

My argument against it being a state is that the people for or against it are solely for it's political advantage of disadvantage. That's enough to tell me it is a bad idea.

but if the people against it are only against it for political advantage doesnt that tell you not making it a state is a bad idea too?

if both options have the same argument against them then what makes you side with one over the other?
---

split the difference, remove wyoming

---

Let's split Texas into 5 gerrymandered red states.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

but if the people against it are only against it for political advantage doesnt that tell you not making it a state is a bad idea too?

if both options have the same argument against them then what makes you side with one over the other?

Because if you flipped the circumstances, the sides both change their stances. Thus, the argument isn't for the right reasons at its root.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Because if you flipped the circumstances, the sides both change their stances. Thus, the argument isn't for the right reasons at its root.

But that doesn't imply you should therefore choose the status quo.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Because if you flipped the circumstances, the sides both change their stances. Thus, the argument isn't for the right reasons at its root.

Then that should mean you shouldn't personally have a stance one way or the other. By specifically choosing "It shouldn't be a state," your answer becomes partisan, because even though both sides are making it a partisan issue, you're still choosing to side with your side of the aisle even though the same logic for why you're against it can be applied to them.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Because if you flipped the circumstances, the sides both change their stances. Thus, the argument isn't for the right reasons at its root.

ok I feel like theres some miscommunication here or something because that doesnt clarify anything

that is still a point equally against making it a state and not making it a state

why does it only harm the make it a state argument for you
---

Corrik7 posted...

My argument against it being a state is that the people for or against it are solely for it's political advantage of disadvantage. That's enough to tell me it is a bad idea.

Ok but there actually IS an argument for it that isnt political.

Is there a non-political argument against it?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Ok but there actually IS an argument for it that isnt political.

Is there a non-political argument against it?

This is the point.

Points for becoming a state:
-Partisan reason here
-700,000 people being taxed without representation

Points against becoming a state:
-Partisan reason here
-???

We're asking you for what you believe the ??? is. Because the partisan arguments should cancel out.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Ok but there actually IS an argument for it that isnt political.

Is there a non-political argument against it?

Of course there is.

President George Washington chose the exact site along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, and the city was officially founded in 1790 after both Maryland and Virginia ceded land to this new district, to be distinct and distinguished from the rest of the states.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Of course there is.

President George Washington chose the exact site along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, and the city was officially founded in 1790 after both Maryland and Virginia ceded land to this new district, to be distinct and distinguished from the rest of the states.

"It started that way" has never been a reason to not change something.

EDIT: Now, if you want to fill in the blank in "It started that way because ____," then maybe there's a discussion there.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

"It started that way" has never been a reason to not change something.

Give a reason. Gives a reason from the people who created it. Dismisses reason.

Okay. Got it.

"In other words, the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to insult or interrupt the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power."

---

Now that we established there are non-political reasons on both sides.

Let's examine WHY people want it to be a state, others don't want it to be a state, and why they completely flip their positions depending on the circumstances.

Political reasons.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Of course there is.

President George Washington chose the exact site along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, and the city was officially founded in 1790 after both Maryland and Virginia ceded land to this new district, to be distinct and distinguished from the rest of the states.

Not only is the current DC not the "exact site" as defined by Washington (Virginia was given its portion back in 1846) but "DC statehood" doesn't eliminate the federal district - it typically redefines it to the area around the Mall containing the WH and Capitol. The rest - where the people actually live - would become the 51st state.

So there would still be a federal district it would just be redefined so that its existence doesn't leave 700,000 American citizens without voting representation in Congress. We've redefined the area of DC before!

---

Corrik7 posted...

Give a reason. Gives a reason from the people who created it. Dismisses reason.

Okay. Got it.

"George Washington decided the location" was not a reason, so I couldn't have possibly dismissed a reason since you hadn't provided one before this post.

That's like saying "George Washington painted the wall blue" as a reason to not repaint a wall. Why did he paint the wall blue? You didn't give that information in your first post, so I dismissed nothing.

---

If DC was a state you could get a sort of "war of laws" like the one that occurred between the government of the Russian SSR and the central government of the Soviet Union. In the end the actual power of the central government of the USSR was reduced to just the Kremlin, and then they gave up. Putin has told the world that he think this was a mistake on Lenin's part in giving the member republics too much power, but maybe things would have gone differently if the USSR has explicitly seized the territory of Moscow from Russia and made it a federal district.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Now that we established there are non-political reasons on both sides.

Let's examine WHY people want it to be a state, others don't want it to be a state, and why they completely flip their positions depending on the circumstances.

Political reasons.

yeah but the political reasons cancel each other out so you should just ignore them
---

My opinion doesn't change if DC is a red area. And my opinion is that Puerto Rico should be granted statehood if they choose to be a state even though they are likely a blue area.

The people who change their opinions based on the voting beholden to their party are the ones at issue.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Give a reason. Gives a reason from the people who created it. Dismisses reason.

Okay. Got it.

"In other words, the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to insult or interrupt the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power."

looking at madisons concern in 2020, does it seem reasonable

My opinion doesn't change if DC is a red area. And my opinion is that Puerto Rico should be granted statehood if they choose to be a state even though they are likely a blue area.

Id like to say my opinion on this doesnt change based on the likely voting pattern of the place were making a state, but I have no way to prove that because for some reason were not disenfranchising any red areas.
---

"700,000 people paying taxes without representation" is not a party issue, and isn't one that has been properly argued against, considering this country literally came about because of a similar situation.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

"700,000 people paying taxes without representation" is not a party issue, and isn't one that has been properly argued against, considering this country literally came about because of a similar situation.

So you are perfectly on board with the surrounding states taking back their territory and incorporating them back into their own states then, yes?

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

looking at madisons concern in 2020, does it seem reasonable

Id like to say my opinion on this doesnt change based on the likely voting pattern of the place were making a state, but I have no way to prove that because for some reason were not disenfranchising any red areas.

The problem is the state could mandate something which shuts down the federal capitol.

If the DC governor mandates no meetings or gathering of over 3 people due to the Coronavirus, they could effectively shut down Congress and the White House.

There just is no reason for that possibility to exist.

---

Joe Rogan just put up an episode with Jon Stewart

real good stuff

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

looking at madisons concern in 2020, does it seem reasonable

It absolutely does. Concurrent with Madison's time, in France, the city of Paris was sending armed mobs to enter the National Assembly and arrest elected members of the National Assembly from other parts of France whom they disliked using armed force. It could happen here but for the wise choices of our founders.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So you are perfectly on board with the surrounding states taking back their territory and incorporating them back into their own states then, yes?

Sure, absolutely.

Corrik7 posted...

The problem is the state could mandate something which shuts down the federal capitol.

If the DC governor mandates no meetings or gathering of over 3 people due to the Coronavirus, they could effectively shut down Congress and the White House.

There just is no reason for that possibility to exist.

No they can't, because the federal district itself would still exist. It'd just be smaller.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The problem is the state could mandate something which shuts down the federal capitol.

If the DC governor mandates no meetings or gathering of over 3 people due to the Coronavirus, they could effectively shut down Congress and the White House.

There just is no reason for that possibility to exist.

Wht stops the mayor of DC doing this?

---

GildedFool posted...

Wht stops the mayor of DC doing this?

Congress controls DC directly. They have a mayor but Congress can overrule them and any laws the city council might pass.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Sure, absolutely.

No they can't, because the district itself would still exist. It'd just be smaller.

So the states ceded territory to the federal district and now the ceded territory should become a new state and the federal district reapplied to what it was that they ceded territory to? Its not a very good argument for making a new state imo.

---

Let me guess, someone I have ignored thinks DC statehood is a bad idea. Is it Corrik? I bet it's Corrik.

Corrik7 posted...

Its not a very good argument for making a new state imo.

The argument has nothing to do with the land corrik.

It's to do with 700 thousand people who live on it.

---

If people feel disenfranchised, the states should reincorporate the ceded areas back to their states. This should create maybe an additional representative or two for Dems and also secure Virgina as a democrat state for the time being in presidential elections.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

Let me guess, someone I have ignored thinks DC statehood is a bad idea. Is it Corrik? I bet it's Corrik.

Nailed it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So the states ceded territory to the federal district and now the ceded territory should become a new state and the federal district reapplied to what it was that they ceded territory to? Its not a very good argument for making a new state imo.

I mean as already stated, the district isn't the same as it began to begin with, so whether the territory went back to the states, or whether it became a state itself, there's no real argument against it happening again.

---

I have a sixth sense for this sort of thing

Corrik7 posted...

If people feel disenfranchised, the states should reincorporate the ceded areas back to their states. This should create maybe an additional representative or two for Dems and also secure Virgina as a democrat state for the time being in presidential elections.

Just Maryland. Virginia's land was already returned in 1846.

---

Corrik7 posted...

If people feel disenfranchised, the states should reincorporate the ceded areas back to their states. This should create maybe an additional representative or two for Dems and also secure Virgina as a democrat state for the time being in presidential elections.

If thats what the people living in DC want then sure.

I think it should be up to them.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Just Maryland. Virginia's land was already returned in 1846.

Then looks like Maryland gets whatever representatives it would for 700k new voters if people feel disenfranchised living in a federal district.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So you are perfectly on board with the surrounding states taking back their territory and incorporating them back into their own states then, yes?

If that was what the people of DC and Maryland and/or Virginia wanted, then sure. However, MD and VA don't want DC, and DC doesn't want to be absorbed by one of them. They want to be their own state.

The territories are the ones with a better argument for not being states imo, since in a practical sense they are relatively autonomous and culturally separated from the US; them choosing independence might make more sense. The citizens of DC are in no important way different from citizens of any of the 50 states, and there's no excuse for them not having a voice in Congress and yet to be uniquely subject to Congress's whims (e.g. Congress has blocked gun control in DC, which they would not be able to do for any state).

---

Corrik7 posted...

If people feel disenfranchised

"If?"

Their license plates have the motto "Taxation Without Representation"

pretty sure they're not hiding how they feel

Republicans try to hide it though because they remove it from Presidential motorcades when they hold the office.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The territories are the ones with a better argument for not being states imo, since in a practical sense they are relatively autonomous and culturally separated from the US; them choosing independence might make more sense. The citizens of DC are in no important way different from citizens of any of the 50 states, and there's no excuse for them not having a voice in Congress and yet to be uniquely subject to Congress's whims (e.g. Congress has blocked gun control in DC, which they would not be able to do for any state).

Additionally, unlike the other territories, DC is the only jurisdiction that is still subject to full federal taxes IIRC.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The problem is the state could mandate something which shuts down the federal capitol.

If the DC governor mandates no meetings or gathering of over 3 people due to the Coronavirus, they could effectively shut down Congress and the White House.

There just is no reason for that possibility to exist.

DC the nation's capitol could be shrunk to include just the White House/Congress and some thin strip of land connecting them, with Congress maintaining control over that area. The surrounding area then becomes DC the state, with no control over DC the capitol (and DC the capitol has no more control over DC the state than they would any other state).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

DC the nation's capitol could be shrunk to include just the White House/Congress and some thin strip of land connecting them, with Congress maintaining control over that area. The surrounding area then becomes DC the state, with no control over DC the capitol (and DC the capitol has no more control over DC the state than they would any other state).

So it could go back to the state it came from, sure. It was ceded for purpose of giving land to a federal district. Not for the purpose of expelling to create a new state.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

If that was what the people of DC and Maryland and/or Virginia wanted, then sure. However, MD and VA don't want DC, and DC doesn't want to be absorbed by one of them. They want to be their own state.

The territories are the ones with a better argument for not being states imo, since in a practical sense they are relatively autonomous and culturally separated from the US; them choosing independence might make more sense. The citizens of DC are in no important way different from citizens of any of the 50 states, and there's no excuse for them not having a voice in Congress and yet to be uniquely subject to Congress's whims (e.g. Congress has blocked gun control in DC, which they would not be able to do for any state).

The whims of Congress are the will of the People.

Residents of DC don't have to live there. They are full US citizens and can move to and vote in another state. If I moved to a territory, I couldn't vote in most US elections either. These borders have existed for 200 years.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So it could go back to the state it came from, sure. It was ceded for purpose of giving land to a federal district. Not for the purpose of expelling to create a new state.

If the state doesn't want it back, and the people don't want that, then what reason would you have for opposing it?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

If the state doesn't want it back, and the people don't want that, then what reason would you have for opposing it?

The same I already do. That it is a federal district. It is one for a purpose. And that those wishing to change that are doing so for purely political reasons.

It sure exposes that representation isn't the issue if they would refuse the right to vote being part of Maryland again and being represented then.

---

red sox 777 posted...

The whims of Congress are the will of the People.

Even if I were to grant you this, they're certainly not the will of the people of DC, who lack any representation in that Congress.

---