United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

AndrewJTalon

Well-known member
Founder

Here is the best illustration of why DC becoming a state is a bad idea, from our own history:

For real Americans, history matters right along with the intent of the Founders. And history demonstrates quite readily why the Founders put into the Constitution that the seat of the Federal government would be under the exclusive control of the Feds and not beholding to any state.
Why?
I give you the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783:
On June 17, 1783, Congress received a message from soldiers of the Continental Army stationed in Philadelphia, which demanded payment for their service during the American Revolutionary War. The soldiers threatened to take action that day if their complaints were not addressed. Congress ignored their message, but the soldiers did not act on their threat. Two days later, however, the Congress received word that a group of about 80 soldiers had left their post at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, approximately 60 miles (97 km) west of Philadelphia, and had joined with the soldiers stationed at the city barracks. The group of approximately 500 men had effective control over the weapons stores and munition depot.[2]
The next morning on June 20, the State House was mobbed by as many as 400 soldiers demanding payment. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Alexander Hamilton, then a delegate from New York, persuaded the soldiers to allow Congress to meet later to address their concerns. The soldiers did allow the members of Congress to peacefully adjourn that afternoon.[3] That evening, a small Congressional committee, headed by Hamilton, met in secret to draft a message to the Pennsylvania Council, asking them to protect Congress from the mutineers. The letter threatened that Congress would be forced to move elsewhere if the Council did not act.[2]
On June 21, the Congressional committee met again at the State House with members of the Pennsylvania Executive Council, including its president, John Dickinson. The members of Congress asked the council to do more to protect the federal government. Dickinson and the council agreed to consult with the militia commanders and reply to Congress the next day. The following morning, the Pennsylvania Council again refused Congress’ request. Lacking sufficient assurances that the state would be willing to protect Congress, the members left Philadelphia that day for Princeton, New Jersey.[2][3]
There followed all manner of excuses why Pennsylvania refused to defend Congress, but the fact remained that Congressional members realized they could not put the Fed government under the influence of any one state. As James Madison in The Federalist #43 put it:
The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.
D.C. statehood would be more than just one House representative and two Senators. There would also be a state legislature that would then exercise its powers and influence over the Federal government.
1783 was the impetus to establish a fixed seat of government under the exclusive control of Congress. It was important enough a subject to be included in the Constitution and no amount of cynical, ahistorical breast-beating about RAAAACISM can erase it.
That’s today’s Real American History lesson.
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member

Here is the best illustration of why DC becoming a state is a bad idea, from our own history:
Neat. Yeah there is a reason New Delhi is a Capital Territory and not a State. Still support my Move the Capital to Chicken Alaska idea. Dont think Alaska would mind too much have a 50 mile area count as not under its jurisdiction. Small potatoes for that giant you know?
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
-snip-

Here is the best illustration of why DC becoming a state is a bad idea, from our own history:
Seriously? Your best reason against making it a state is that it would leave DC vulnerable in the case of a major domestic attack, or at least subject to that states whims? Remind me what happened January 6th? It also kinda ignores that both technology and the socio-political climate are just a bit different now. Also also, that ignores that there would still be a federal district not subject to the new state.
 

AndrewJTalon

Well-known member
Founder
Seriously? Your best reason against making it a state is that it would leave DC vulnerable in the case of a major domestic attack, or at least subject to that states whims? Remind me what happened January 6th? It also kinda ignores that both technology and the socio-political climate are just a bit different now. Also also, that ignores that there would still be a federal district not subject to the new state.

Subject to the state's whims is an extremely good argument against it in the first place, and you're reading it far too literally. You really think the letter of the law is how it will be enforced without considering the human element. This is such a constant problem for you: Are you on the spectrum and unable to process how human social interactions can influence political outcomes?

Because that's how it seems. You actually think the letter of the law is all that will be followed and never seem to consider how human emotions and desires will play a role in how things will go.

The Democrats want ultimate power. Ink on a page will not stop those determined enough to get it.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Subject to the state's whims is an extremely good argument against it in the first place, and you're reading it far too literally. You really think the letter of the law is how it will be enforced without considering the human element. This is such a constant problem for you: Are you on the spectrum and unable to process how human social interactions can influence political outcomes?

Because that's how it seems. You actually think the letter of the law is all that will be followed and never seem to consider how human emotions and desires will play a role in how things will go.

The Democrats want ultimate power. Ink on a page will not stop those determined enough to get it.
Yeah, except there will still be a separate federal district over which the new state has no power. So, not subject to their whims. So it is in fact an entirely meaningless argument. What, exactly, do you imagine the new state could do to influence political outcomes through social interaction? For your answer, keep in mind that the people who would form the state are the same one's who are there already.

You're acting like making a DC state would somehow radically alter the local political landscape. It's the same people, having the same interactions, except now they have a state legislature to take care of their local concerns rather than booting decisions about residential zoning or whether Bob from accounting can smoke pot never, sometimes or always to the federal government.

And that last bit? :ROFLMAO: The Democrats want to achieve power, and use it to achieve their stated aims!? Those nefarious bastards, so unlike any other political party anywhere ever. Are you going to try and tell me that the GOP don't want to win power and advance the causes they espouse?

Seriously, it keeps coming back to "This is bad, because the Democrats want it and they must be stopped!" and cool for you if you define your entire political view as some tribalistic us v them bullshit, but "The democrats want to do a thing, to support their position!" doesn't really shock anyone or convince them of your position. Like, the opposition to the idea is just as partisan as the idea, so where does all the ridiculous moral indignation I'm seeing come from?
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
Yeah, except there will still be a separate federal district over which the new state has no power. So, not subject to their whims. So it is in fact an entirely meaningless argument. What, exactly, do you imagine the new state could do to influence political outcomes through social interaction? For your answer, keep in mind that the people who would form the state are the same one's who are there already.

You're acting like making a DC state would somehow radically alter the local political landscape. It's the same people, having the same interactions, except now they have a state legislature to take care of their local concerns rather than booting decisions about residential zoning or whether Bob from accounting can smoke pot never, sometimes or always to the federal government.

And that last bit? :ROFLMAO: The Democrats want to achieve power, and use it to achieve their stated aims!? Those nefarious bastards, so unlike any other political party anywhere ever. Are you going to try and tell me that the GOP don't want to win power and advance the causes they espouse?

Seriously, it keeps coming back to "This is bad, because the Democrats want it and they must be stopped!" and cool for you if you define your entire political view as some tribalistic us v them bullshit, but "The democrats want to do a thing, to support their position!" doesn't really shock anyone or convince them of your position. Like, the opposition to the idea is just as partisan as the idea, so where does all the ridiculous moral indignation I'm seeing come from?
"We don't like it because it's just a power play by the democrats so they can push their agenda that we think is dangerous and could ruin the country because their rhetoric Literally includes things about tearing down the whole system"

"Lulz guys what's so bad about democrats wanting to take more power?"

If you aren't aware of our problems with democrats, (and them getting more power,) by now, then you never will be.

"Guys why are you so against Hitler bolstering his power?"

I'm not calling democrats Nazis here, but I am making the point that if we think they are terrible then OF COURSE we are against measures that would solidy their power.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
If your stated reason for wanting DC statehood is due to worrying that the residents of DC lack direct representation in the Federal government then there is a much simpler and established method for handling it: retrocession. Return all those residential and commercial areas to the State of Maryland, they would then be represented by the two Senators from Maryland and the State would likely gain at least one, if not two or more House seats at the next reappointment due to the population of DC being integrated into it.

This situation has historical precedent (the parts of DC that were part of Virginia were also retroceded back to the Commonwealth), does not require major revamping of rules, nor is it constitutionally dubious. It solves all the problems with representation that DC now has, and further actually simplifies regional issues.

The only people who's interests it doesn't solve is national Democratic politicians, whom want the two extra Senate seats to gain more power, and the DC local government politicians who would no longer be the Big Fish and would have to answer to a more involved State government.

Basically, unless you're core interest is in expanding partisan political power in the Federal government, you should be an advocate for Retrocession, as it's a true bipartisan and equitable solution to the problem.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
"We don't like it because it's just a power play by the democrats so they can push their agenda that we think is dangerous and could ruin the country because their rhetoric Literally includes things about tearing down the whole system"

"Lulz guys what's so bad about democrats wanting to take more power?"

If you aren't aware of our problems with democrats, (and them getting more power,) by now, then you never will be.

"Guys why are you so against Hitler bolstering his power?"

I'm not calling democrats Nazis here, but I am making the point that if we think they are terrible then OF COURSE we are against measures that would solidy their power.
Serious question, how much more power would it actually give them? LindyAF did an analysis earlier that showed that giving Dems 2 extra seats would rarely have made a difference for having majority, and never for filibuster-breaking (because it would also add 2 to the requirement).

At what point is the benefit of preventing a marginal increase in Dem power no longer worth the continual mass disenfranchisement required to accomplish that end?
If your stated reason for wanting DC statehood is due to worrying that the residents of DC lack direct representation in the Federal government then there is a much simpler and established method for handling it: retrocession. Return all those residential and commercial areas to the State of Maryland, they would then be represented by the two Senators from Maryland and the State would likely gain at least one, if not two or more House seats at the next reappointment due to the population of DC being integrated into it.
I'm pretty sure it would be one since DC's population is slightly below the average of (US pop/435).

Retrocession to Maryland would work for the purpose of giving DC residents congressional representation, except that as I understand it Maryland doesn't want DC back because it would mess up their local politics. Constitutionally the state can't be forced to take it back.
 

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Serious question, how much more power would it actually give them?
Insert 'it's not about the power, it's about sending a message'.

As has been mentioned, Puerto Rico is a considerably better candidate for statehood. It is passed over in favor of DC purely because DC is the more friendly to partisan interests.
If one is 'conspiratorial' it can even be pointed out that those partisan interests are larger than parties themselves even and consists of narcissistic, corrupt federal power structures that seek the elevation of themselves and their own influence at any opportunity. With their workforce concentrated heavily in the DC area, it is not a state or party that gains representation and influence, but the federal government itself--two more senators to vote to ban funding for states that don't have the feds opinion of the 'right' drinking age. Or to vote for more funding to the FBI and the ATF and less to FISA Courts. Etcetera.

On principle alone, DC should not be a state. At very least, it should not be discussed until the US runs out of territories that seek the status.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
As has been mentioned, Puerto Rico is a considerably better candidate for statehood. It is passed over in favor of DC purely because DC is the more friendly to partisan interests.
I agree that statehood for Puerto Rico would come with less political baggage. As for being passed over, we'll see. Are you aware that there are Puerto Rico statehood admission acts going through committee in both houses of Congress since March of this year?

What principle are you standing on when you say that DC should take a backseat for admission to statehood to other federal territories? DC seems to be more keen on achieving statehood than all the other current territories, including Puerto Rico.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Like, the opposition to the idea is just as partisan as the idea, so where does all the ridiculous moral indignation I'm seeing come from?

(In this post I use 'Democrats' to mean party high-ups and radical ideologues, not common everyday voters who are simply ignorant of human psychology and economics.)

1. They are trying to change the rules of the game to ensure that only they can win. We call this 'cheating' in actual games; when people try to do it in real life with the power of the state, violating constitutional law to do so, we call this 'treason.'
2. The Democrats have demonstrated that they will not only permit, but will encourage political violence to get what they want. The riots over the last year alone would be proof of this, the extremely extensive history of political violence on their part prior is honestly just gravy.
3. One party states always end in tyranny. Trying to ensure permanent political control of a nation is the same thing as trying to become that nation's slavemasters.
4. The Democrats have openly stated:
A: They do not believe in free speech.
B: They do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
C: They believe in punishing people for immutable characteristics (race, gender, etc.)
D: That it is okay for them to use lethal force to make you submit to them.

In other words, the Democrats are trying to permanently ensure that they have the power to ruin my life and kill me at any time, at any place, for any reason they please. Given that I'm not a politically-approved minority of sufficient rank, even if I kept my mouth shut and never said anything political ever again, I'd still be a 'legitimate target' and subject to ruin at any moment.

This is why them trying to give DC statehood is such a big deal. It's an open violation of the constitution to try to institute permanent totalitarian rule.
 

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
What principle are you standing on when you say that DC should take a backseat for admission to statehood to other federal territories?
The distinction DC holds to those territories (and to the states) of being the seat of power and host for the federal government and its constituent organs.

DC is unique in that regard, and those who live there benefit directly as a consequence, making it and them distinct from both territories and states already.

Alternatively to running out of territories that may desire admittance into statehood, I suppose the mass distribution of federal organizations and infrastructure to the states would begin to correct DCs unique status--if we had the FBI based out of Illinois, the IRS out of South Dakota, the BIA out of Oklahoma and etcetera through the agencies and cabinets of the federal government so that DC was truly just distinct for its monuments and hosting Congress, then it would be more proper to argue about admittance as a state.

But that'd require a major shift in the operations of the federal government.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
The distinction DC holds to those territories (and to the states) of being the seat of power and host for the federal government and its constituent organs.

DC is unique in that regard, and those who live there benefit directly as a consequence, making it and them distinct from both territories and states already.

Alternatively to running out of territories that may desire admittance into statehood, I suppose[...]
What I don't understand is why the number of other non-state territories (that desire statehood) that exist is relevant to the idea that DC becoming a state is fundamentally inappropriate due to its proximity to the seat of federal power. You say that if that number goes down from what it presently is, you'd become less hostile to DC statehood; why?

Speaking of which, many federal buildings, I believe including the IRS headquarters for example, would actually not be in the new state but rather in the rump federal district, which would still exist as constitutionally mandated. The new state wouldn't be any worse than Virginia and Maryland are in terms of that kind of thing, I think. Do you disagree?
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
(In this post I use 'Democrats' to mean party high-ups and radical ideologues, not common everyday voters who are simply ignorant of human psychology and economics.)

1. They are trying to change the rules of the game to ensure that only they can win. We call this 'cheating' in actual games; when people try to do it in real life with the power of the state, violating constitutional law to do so, we call this 'treason.'
2. The Democrats have demonstrated that they will not only permit, but will encourage political violence to get what they want. The riots over the last year alone would be proof of this, the extremely extensive history of political violence on their part prior is honestly just gravy.
3. One party states always end in tyranny. Trying to ensure permanent political control of a nation is the same thing as trying to become that nation's slavemasters.
4. The Democrats have openly stated:
A: They do not believe in free speech.
B: They do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
C: They believe in punishing people for immutable characteristics (race, gender, etc.)
D: That it is okay for them to use lethal force to make you submit to them.

In other words, the Democrats are trying to permanently ensure that they have the power to ruin my life and kill me at any time, at any place, for any reason they please. Given that I'm not a politically-approved minority of sufficient rank, even if I kept my mouth shut and never said anything political ever again, I'd still be a 'legitimate target' and subject to ruin at any moment.

This is why them trying to give DC statehood is such a big deal. It's an open violation of the constitution to try to institute permanent totalitarian rule.
This is pretty much an accurate summation. Hell, I'm seeing parallels between AntiFa and BLM with pre-Nazi Germany's Brownshirts, except with social-media replacing leaflets and clandestine organizational meetings, and their using the excuse of "racism" to act like cats' paws.
 

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
What I don't understand is why the number of other non-state territories (that desire statehood) that exist is relevant to the idea that DC becoming a state is fundamentally inappropriate due to its proximity to the seat of federal power.
Because they should be dealt with first, by order of precedence. Based upon their lack of status and representation (which DC differs in having such federal status).

The new state wouldn't be any worse than Virginia and Maryland are in terms of that kind of thing, I think. Do you disagree?
Yes, because the buildings are irrelevant. Those who work in them is the objection.

Distribute those people around the country and it becomes less of a problem because the federal bureaucracy is incorporated into multiple other state interest groups. As it stands, DC is a federal enclave of federal workers and those servicing them, not a state or a territory (and more influential in reality for it)
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
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?
To the democrats who would be opposing it on principle I would say 'yes'.

If you want to enfranchise DC that's one thing but this just isnt about enfranchisement otherwise the option of returning those areas to Maryland and Virginia would be being contemplated.

No it's just about gaining two more senate votes, the dems wouldn't accept it if the situation were reversed and neither will we.

Does that answer satisfy?
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
This is pretty much an accurate summation. Hell, I'm seeing parallels between AntiFa and BLM with pre-Nazi Germany's Brownshirts, except with social-media replacing leaflets and clandestine organizational meetings and their using the excuse of "racism".

I'd say there are considerably more parallels with Antifaschistische Aktion, Kampfbund gegen den Faschismus, or Roter Frontkämpferbund.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top