United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
If representation is truly a concern, then I have an alternative to simply making DC a state - rezone the residential areas to be suburbs, and give them to the state they are in depending on what side of the river they are on.
As far as I can tell, the two states in question do not want DC to be part of their territories and reject the possibility of having to deal with it.

For the record, note that they aren't actually making DC a state. That would be a violation of the constitution, Article 1 section 8, which requires that the seat of government be a district overseen by congress.

What's being proposed is shrinking DC down in size and turning the area that's trimmed from it into a state, but there will still have to be a Washington DC that's not a state but a congress-controlled district.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
If the true worry was about the enfranchisement of DC's population then they could always force Maryland to take the city back. For some reason that's never brought up as an option.
It was literally bought up as an option 3 posts before yours, and a couple other people have already discussed the issues there. Try to keep up.
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member
Simplest solution is the chaotic one. Go for that 6 California's thing, the Puerto Rico and DC statehood, the half of Oregon state defecting to Idaho and states like Illinois and others seceding from their own crapshack cities at once. Make the new political landscape so chaotic that no one group or party can claim it disproportionately favors the other.

That way everybody is happy but the politicians and their cronies. So most of the ones honestly bothering with this pile of shitakimushrooms.

While you are at it turn the Capitol Mall into an actual Mall already and move the Capital to Chicken Alaska.
 
Last edited:

Megadeath

Well-known member
It passed the House. I'm praying it dies in the Senate like the rest of this garbage.

Honestly though, I'm not confident we're ever going to be truly free again without bloodshed. But hope springs eternal it won't come to that.
You never did explain why you think it's so crazy? What makes it objectively wrong to enfranchise people, rather than the subjective issue that it'll help the "other side"? If DC would vote solidly Republican would it still be bad?
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member
Seriously though. Give the Alaska Capital thing a though. Them pricks have had it too got for too long! Being that far away from the rest of this tripe. That and making Congress live in Chicken Alaska. Call it the Bawked Alaskan Proclomation.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Regarding the filibuster threshold, I'm pretty sure it would be effectively unchanged, since 60% of 102 is 61.2—61 doesn't meet the threshold; you don't get to round to the nearest integer.
I'll stick my neck out and say DC was never meant to be a state, it isn't part of a neighboring state on purpose.
They didn't want a powerful state like Pennsylvania or Virginia to have it and thus have too much influence. When there are 51 states instead of 13, and the state would be tiny, that's not so much of a concern.
[...] as I said this is just going to help the Democrats and if they get Puerto Rico too they can then lock down control of the government. [...]
Many people on both sides assume this to be the case, but I'm not convinced. Puerto Rico has its own weird politics, and they're more religious and more Catholic, and other differences. I suspect they'd be pretty independent.
If representation is truly a concern, then I have an alternative to simply making DC a state - rezone the residential areas to be suburbs, and give them to the state they are in depending on what side of the river they are on.
Virginia's side was already given back in 1846, partly because locals were sick of being the playthings of Congress (local control was not yet given to them) and partly because Virginians perceived a benefit to their state politics. Maryland doesn't want it back because it would mess up their state politics.
If the true worry was about the enfranchisement of DC's population then they could always force Maryland to take the city back. For some reason that's never brought up as an option.
States cannot be forced to give up or take on territory like that.
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member
States cannot be forced to give up or take on territory like that.
What's the over under legalese wise on territory voting to join another state or break away to form a new one? And whats the precedent like for just how much of a state can do it before its basically it annexing a chunk instead of the other way around?
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
What's the over under legalese wise on territory voting to join another state or break away to form a new one? And whats the precedent like for just how much of a state can do it before its basically it annexing a chunk instead of the other way around?
As I understand it, you only need two ingredients to alter a state's borders: the state's legislature says OK and Congress says OK.

So if your state is next to a U.S. territory* your state and Congress can agree to let your state gobble it up; or your state and Congress could agree to transfer some of its land to the territory in anticipation of it becoming a state. The size doesn't really matter; the territory could be ten times as big but the state still is the entity with political control.

*Proximity not actually required.

Example 1: Let's say Puerto Rico was let in as a state. Then the U.S. Virgin Islands decides it doesn't like being a territory anymore and Puerto Rico and Congress agree to make it part of the state of Puerto Rico.

Example 2: Texas has bragged one time too many about how big it is. Alaska petitions Congress to give up half its territory and make Alaska Junior the second biggest state (Texas is now #3).

Example 3: Virginia and Maryland agree to transfer the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Maryland. I believe Congress has to sign off on this plan.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
You never did explain why you think it's so crazy? What makes it objectively wrong to enfranchise people, rather than the subjective issue that it'll help the "other side"? If DC would vote solidly Republican would it still be bad?

It would violate the constitution, for one.

For another, DC already has far more influence on the Federal government than any state does, by simple fact of the local culture dominating so much of the apparatus of the federal bureaucracy. There are good reasons for the administrative district of a nation to have sharp limits on what influence it holds in balance to the rest of the nation. Part of that is because it gives the administrative state an additional level of sway over whether or not to increase their own authority and funding, something they already have by far altogether too much of.

On top of that, being a resident of DC is strictly voluntary. Anyone who lives there can more. It takes ~6 months to a year to establish residency within a state, and you aren't required to change your registry even if you work or live elsewhere most of the year. Beyond that, DC residents get to elect their city government.

If you are seriously worried about enfrachisement, there's a much simpler solution than making an area less than 70 square miles (stronger than pretty much all Counties) into a state. Just create a legal setup where everyone who lives in DC is still legally a resident of a different state. This would fit well for elected officials in a symbolic way as well. Then you can vote with the rest of your state, and there's a much-reduced conflict of interest.

No, the real reason the Democrats are pushing this is because DC is deeper blue than California or any blue state, and as more and more power accrues to the federal bureaucracies, this trend will only intensify. It would take a shocking national event on the level of a world war to have a chance at changing the entrenched local culture, and so it's literally just an attempt to gain permanent Democrat seats in the Senate and House.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
It would violate the constitution, for one.

For another, DC already has far more influence on the Federal government than any state does, by simple fact of the local culture dominating so much of the apparatus of the federal bureaucracy. There are good reasons for the administrative district of a nation to have sharp limits on what influence it holds in balance to the rest of the nation. Part of that is because it gives the administrative state an additional level of sway over whether or not to increase their own authority and funding, something they already have by far altogether too much of.

On top of that, being a resident of DC is strictly voluntary. Anyone who lives there can more. It takes ~6 months to a year to establish residency within a state, and you aren't required to change your registry even if you work or live elsewhere most of the year. Beyond that, DC residents get to elect their city government.

If you are seriously worried about enfrachisement, there's a much simpler solution than making an area less than 70 square miles (stronger than pretty much all Counties) into a state. Just create a legal setup where everyone who lives in DC is still legally a resident of a different state. This would fit well for elected officials in a symbolic way as well. Then you can vote with the rest of your state, and there's a much-reduced conflict of interest.

No, the real reason the Democrats are pushing this is because DC is deeper blue than California or any blue state, and as more and more power accrues to the federal bureaucracies, this trend will only intensify. It would take a shocking national event on the level of a world war to have a chance at changing the entrenched local culture, and so it's literally just an attempt to gain permanent Democrat seats in the Senate and House.
Yup: even I can see this is basically just another power-grab ploy by the Democrats, and I'm a) not even American and b) typically ignorant of politics.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
Why exactly is DC getting statehood crazy?
Because we all know the ONLY REASON democrats want to do it is to get a few more democrat reps and senators.

Point blank. Period.

Don't give me any nonsense about representing the people. If this benefited the republicans, they would not be pushing it.

It's a blatant power grab and no one here is going to believe whatever bullshit you're about to conjure up to try to deny it.

The rest of the discussion about this is all a farce. Democrats want it and republicans don't because it benefits democrats, and if it benefited republicans it would be reversed.

The rest of this discussion is all made up so that people can feel like they have an intellectual reason to support/be against it. In reality It's 100% about the power.
 
Last edited:

Megadeath

Well-known member
Because we all know the ONLY REASON democrats want to do it is to get a few more democrat reps and senators.

Point blank. Period.

Don't give me any nonsense about representing the people. If this benefited the republicans, they would not be pushing it.

It's a blatant power grab and no one here is going to believe whatever bullshit you're about to conjure up to try to deny it.

The rest of the discussion about this is all a farce. Democrats want it and republicans don't because it benefits democrats, and if it benefited republicans it would be reversed.

The rest of this discussion is a farce. It's all made up so that people can feel like they have an intellectual reason to support/be against it. In reality It's 100% about the power.
Read my other replies. I haven't and still don't disagree with the assertion that the democrat party is pushing this because it benefits them. I do disagree that that somehow makes it "crazy". Like, seriously? A group of politicians are acting in the interest of their party, and somehow that's a ridiculous travesty? I'm sure everyone here was equally shocked and appalled about the ridiculous double standard concerning supreme court nominations and GOP gerrymandering. /s

The fact that it's partisan doesn't inherently make something a bad thing, let alone crazy. Give me a reason it's bad, other than "It helps another party over the one I like!"
 

f1onagher

Well-known member
It was literally bought up as an option 3 posts before yours, and a couple other people have already discussed the issues there. Try to keep up.
Publicly, Megadeath, not some randos privately on the internet. No one in an official capacity has pushed giving the city back to Maryland or as LordsFire suggested giving DC residents citizenship in neighboring states. There are plenty of ways to skin this cat if that worry was legitimately about representation, but its not and never was. The entire thing is a pretext and thinly veiled one at that.

I appreciate you playing devil's advocate but sometimes the devil is just evil. Being the public defender sucks.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Publicly, Megadeath, not some randos privately on the internet. No one in an official capacity has pushed giving the city back to Maryland or as LordsFire suggested giving DC residents citizenship in neighboring states. There are plenty of ways to skin this cat if that worry was legitimately about representation, but its not and never was. The entire thing is a pretext and thinly veiled one at that.

I appreciate you playing devil's advocate but sometimes the devil is just evil. Being the public defender sucks.
I'll say it again though, it is indeed a partisan push, I just don't think that matters. The only argument against it seems to be equally partisan. If it's just two groups of politicians fighting for power, then a small almost worthless fig leaf is better than the nothing the other side puts up. I mean, sure the democrats could push for one of those other solutions, but why are they obligated to not act in their own interests? If there's several ways of doing something that's basically good, and one way benefits them, it's hardly crazy that they'd go that option.
 

Largo

Well-known member
If you are seriously worried about enfrachisement, there's a much simpler solution than making an area less than 70 square miles (stronger than pretty much all Counties) into a state. Just create a legal setup where everyone who lives in DC is still legally a resident of a different state. This would fit well for elected officials in a symbolic way as well. Then you can vote with the rest of your state, and there's a much-reduced conflict of interest.
You realize that not everyone who lives in DC is some Congress or bureaucrat, right? There are plenty of people there, ordinary people who work as bus drivers and garbagemen and largely provide the services which those bureaucrats depends on to survive like any city anywhere.

Like, don't get me wrong. I prefer the "DC gets folded into Maryland" idea and I think you've done a better job of outlining why DC statehood is not a great idea as opposed to those in this thread who are opposing it on purely partisan grounds. But I do think that the problem of disenfranchisement in DC is something which should be addressed.

I do have to admit I'm annoyed with the Democrats for focusing on DC statehood instead of Puerto Rico statehood, especially as we all know that they're focusing on DC first for purely partisan advantage. While I'm ambivalent to opposed to DC statehood, I more or less support Puerto Rico statehood.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top