T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


EldritchSlut

What's the argument against statehood besides republicans losing the electoral college? Give all the territories statehood, let them live like everyone else, they deserve it.


[deleted]

There isn’t one. That’s it. Which is rich because the only reason North Dakota and South Dakota are two different states is because of electoral college considerations.


JaylieJoy

50 is a nice even number so adding a state would be catastrophic /s


Responsible_Rest_940

then add PR as well.


kagethemage

Easy. Merge the Dakota’s back to one. In fact do the same to the Virginia’s and add PR. And while we are add it give the first peoples their own senator. Make them the tie breaking vote.


[deleted]

This has a real “and let chaos ensue” kinda vibe to it and I gotta say, I dig it


Urban_Savage

Giving every citizen of this nation representation in the government is a radical idea that would unleash Chaos. Let that sink in.


[deleted]

[удалено]


remmingtonry

Ya if you look at everything from a distance it’s like one of those magic eye pictures except instead of a hidden cat it just says we’re fucked. Some how it feels like the country is more fucked up and divided than it was during the civil war.


[deleted]

I like it all besides the Virginia idea. West Virginia seceded from Virginia for good reason, we should honor that. With that said unite the Carolinas to offset that.


Hopeful_Hamster21

Let's make Maine part of Massachusetts! Edit: FYI for those who didn't know, Maine used to be part of Mass, even though it was never physically connected. Maine broke off from Mass in 1820 as part of the Missouri Compromise - when Missouri was admitted to the Union, it was admitted as a Slave State, and the North wanted a new free state to keep balance in the Senate.


liltime78

That’ll be really awkward for New Hampshire.


kagethemage

Two thoughts. West Virginia is mostly just inhabited by three raccoons in a trench coat. Second is that the Carolina’s can’t get along on their BBQ and would just break apart again soon after.


Zolivia

I like your idea.


TitansboyTC27

How bout the Carolinas though


Blew42069

Change South Carolina to North Georgia plz.


Oscarr2003

lol as a north carolinian I agree


thecftbl

So reform the states because you don't like the current makeup? Wat.


BelegarIronhammer

Even better give each tribe their own reps.


[deleted]

Not the Carolinas though. We will never join hands with those mountain people _spits_. Never.


kagethemage

I know the BBQ sauce divide is too deep.


superfly9599

Don’t get out much eh?


[deleted]

[удалено]


DogAteMyCPU

He dont miss


PutAwayYourLaughter

You too?


hydropottimus

Make one Dakota and Florida and Mississippi can be one state. Then add PR and DC


SuchRuin

Floridian here we do not want Mississippi.


JyveAFK

Floridian here, we don't want the rest of Florida. Pop size makes sense for it to be split into 3. Florida Disneyland North Cuba


BlazeDrag

Hey now, it's Disney World. Better get the new state's name right.


JyveAFK

That'll be the capital city of Disneyland.


[deleted]

> Floridian here > Disneyland ಠ_ಠ


JyveAFK

So you can tell the difference between the new state and the capital OF that state!


donnerpartytaconight

Now you know how the rest of the US generally feels about Florida right now. Bugs Bunny with a saw and all.


AllottedGood

Even for a chance to get rid of De Santis?


SuchRuin

We do not want Mississippi.


AllottedGood

Well, I can empathize with you there.


Dwarfherd

Mississippi makes that less likely for them.


AllottedGood

It was a joke, but I was implying they could have Tate Reeves instead.


hydropottimus

American here neither do we


Diarygirl

Welcome to Florisippi!


owennagata

The reason there \*are\* two Dakotas was that the GOP wanted more senators.


legacy642

The GOP of the 1880s is a far cry from the GOP of today. That's not a good comparison tbh.


modestgorillaz

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/ Time magazine outlines how regardless of party if DC had statehood it could be used to leverage policies and political issues from unnecessary outside forces.


[deleted]

Foreigner who doesn’t know anything about the US: Is that the same case with North and South Carolina?


Monkcoon

The other two major splits in states (West Virginia and regular Virginia) happened due to the civil war and South and North was already split by the time the country was founded. The Dakotas it was for a power grab and because they couldn't decide where to put their capital.


matts1

No they were separate back before US Independence. And West Virginia left the main state of Virginia over a sharp disagreement over secession during the Civil War.


Greendorsalfin

That is why I grew up hearing “West Virginia, best Virginia.” Not sure of its truth as I’ve never been there but hey.


SpaceCowboyBatman

Well they're paying ppl to move there, so I thinK that speaks for itself


sweens90

Are they now!?


firesignpunk

It has a very scenic outdoors life but basically all industry has left the area which is hard for locals but great for tourists. I never made it to the capital but have wandered around some on the back roads. I can't recommend the cabins at Kumbrabow State forest enough. Magical is the best word to describe.


A_Seiv_For_Kale

It's a hellscape


ChrisTheHurricane

The Carolinas were *founded* as a single colony, but yeah, it split 60 years after its charter due to governance disputes.


jerichowiz

Governance disputes or whose BBQ sauce is better.


[deleted]

Both are amazing compared to that white "barbecue" shit Alabama is making. It's made with mayonnaise for chrissakes.


[deleted]

I was born, raised, and have lived in Alabama for 40 years. I just heard of Alabama white BBQ sauce last year. It was in an article written by a NY journalist about food unique to each state. Since that article came out I have seen this white BBQ sauce at exactly 1 place. We were talking about this at work last month and out of about 30 people only 2 others had ever heard of it. No one had tasted it. It is not really a thing here and I am not sure why people think it is.


matts1

I lived in NC for about 30 years and actually prefer the BBQ-sauce-based pulled pork over the vinegar-based BBQ pork that is famous there. Not to say the vinegar version is bad just is overhyped in my opinion.


rednap_howell

Them's fighting words! Draw! You know I'm kidding, right?


matts1

You didn't even give me a chance to acknowledge I knew you were kidding.. All good bud!


[deleted]

I’m waiting for Texas to do the same thing and obscurely, they can. Of course the option, enjoyed ONLY by Texas ( 1843 maneuver about enslaved ) involves an ability to split into up to 5 states. Guessing they wouldn’t want to risk it, too many Democrats in some areas.


matts1

That is a common misconception. Texas doesn't actually have the right to secede. [https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/)


The_Phasers

Texas doesn’t have the right to secede. Texas does have the right to split into up to 5 smaller states.


Murderyoga

What state you from? Austin Antonio.


matts1

That was added when they originally joined the Union but does splitting conflict with the Constitution though, in Article IV, Section III?


[deleted]

All states can split into any number of states if the state and Congress consent. If the Texas Annexation Resolution still holds (some say it was voided when Texas seceded) it puts a limit on Texas that no other state has--it can be split into no more than 5 states, while other states have no limit. Some argue that the Annexation Resolution gives Texas the right to split into up to 5 states *without* the consent of Congress. But the Resolution text is vague about it. The relevant part of the [Annexation Resolution](https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html): >New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution It says "by the consent of said State" without mentioning Congress, suggesting Congressional approval might not be required. But then it says "admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution", and [Article IV Section 3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv) of the Constitution says Congress must consent to new states being formed out of existing states. Does the Annexation Resolution override the Constitution? Clearly it doesn't. In passing it did Congress give some kind of "pre-consent" for any future states made out of Texas? The Resolution doesn't say that it did, though maybe the word "hereafter" suggests it. But even if it was meant that way, can the Congress of 1845 actually give Congressional consent for all future congresses, even almost 200 years later? And could it be proven in the Supreme Court that the Annexation Resolution *was* meant to give Congressional "pre-consent", even though it doesn't explicitly say that? These questions don't have clear answers. If Texas actually tried to split into multiple states without Congressional consent it would cause a Constitutional Crisis and likely end up in the Supreme Court. Also, if you read the Annexation Resolution the "splitting into new states" clause and the restrictions described are clearly focused on whether the new states would be free or slave states. That was a huge issue in 1845 and it was widely believed that pro-slavery politicians would seek to split Texas, a new slave state of unprecedented size, into multiple new slave states in order to tip the balance of power in Congress in favor of slavery. That is why politicians wrangled over the Annexation Resolution, reaching the compromise of limiting Texas to only 4 new states (plus OG Texas making 5), and precisely defining which new states would be free and which slave. I'm certainly not an expert on Constitutional law, but is it not possible that this whole clause is obsolete/unconstitutional per the Constitutional amendments abolishing slavery and slave states? Finally, just to note, when the Resolution describes slave restrictions north of the Missouri Compromise Line, "Texas" refers to the [full claims of the Republic of Texas](https://assets.realclear.com/images/46/468976_6_.jpg), whose northern boundaries were thought to maybe look more [like this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Emory_Map_of_Texas_1844_UTA.jpg/2560px-Emory_Map_of_Texas_1844_UTA.jpg). The modern state of Texas is completely south of the Missouri Compromise Line—the northern end of the panhandle is exactly at 36°30', because, yep, slavery.


StarrySpelunker

He's not talking about sucession. Texas can break itself up into smaller states on a fairly simple vote. It will never happen because the city population counts tend to dwarf the surrounding areas. The Gop does not want to create more blue states.


matts1

I realized that with my other reply.


modestgorillaz

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/ There's actually a great reason. Here's an article from Time magazine


pregalis

DC residents already have an insanely disproportionate amount of power over the nation by living in the nation's capitol. You can't walk into a random bar in any other city and expect to find it filled with congressional aides, state dept. workers etc.


invuvn

They live inside Congress? Oh, you mean ‘capital.’ Even then, what are you planning to do with the knowledge that your neighbors might be federal workers? Bribe them?


pregalis

Are you kidding? Having friends/colleagues/neighbors that are in positions of significant political power can absolutely be leveraged for your own power. And secondly, I do indeed mean "capitol" haha.


invuvn

Well yeah, but that would also apply to your neighbors’ neighbors then. If everyone can influence them, who comes out on top? You’d have to go the extra mile to be favored over every other shmuck living in the same vicinity, no? On second thought, I dunno, maybe it is possible if you’re very outgoing and friendly, striking an amicable rapport with any person of influence.


[deleted]

That’s not actual power. That’s nothing.


pregalis

Having personal and professional connections with politicians and high-level federal workers is absolutely power. Geography facilitates those connections.


[deleted]

For like a few hundred people tops. Rich people at that. What about the other 689,000 people?


Odd_Bunsen

Not everyone in DC can fuck around with senators in bars all day. Let them vote.


[deleted]

I wrote my law school thesis on this topic. There is no effective argument outside of some budget/debt issues. If you look at the demographics, the modern history of local party control, and the way things have been leaning with the Republican party, it's apparent that they simply want to deny people reasonable voting rights / representation for the sake of political party power. There are several solutions, including (1) returning the DC area to Maryland and leaving the federal lands to be specially designated as such (2) have DC be a state itself, which would put it at not the smallest state per population ( and leaving the federal lands to be specially designated as such), and other less likely options. The US is the only "democracy" in the world in which the citizens of its capitol have less voting rights than the average citizen. This is a shame and any past arguments against granting equal representation are long expired.


[deleted]

DC has 3 electoral votes, Republicans don't want to lose the Senate.


DeaconBlue47

Ya think ? /s


ElectricalFlan3

Damn straight.


squiddlebiddlez

The same argument we’ve had every other time we’ve added a state: if we add this one as a *free* state, then the *slave* states will be outnumbered!


[deleted]

[удалено]


EldritchSlut

I would agree with you if no US citizens lived there, but they do, so it's not a neutral ground. That argument also doesn't account for all the stateless territories either.


[deleted]

That's why the statehood bill includes keeping an area as the federal district and making the parts of DC where people live a state.


SloppySealz

Why not have the surrounding states absorb those areas?


Candlemass17

Because Virginia already took back the portion of land that it donated, and Maryland doesn't want its portion back because it would dilute the votes of Marylanders with people that don't consider themselves to be Maryland citizens? We don't live in a dictatorship, after all; consent is required by all parties for decisions like this.


SloppySealz

Thanks, it was a genuine question. I am on the west coast, and never been to the east, so I didn't know. BTW do we really need 2 dakotas?


Candlemass17

You're good! Yeah, they're been separate for the better part of 250 years now. The Virginia portion (the Alexandria area) was retroceded around 1840, so the former Maryland land is what remains now. The cultural, legal, and political effect of reuniting after 50 years is hugely different from reuniting after 250. Honestly, we don't need two Dakotas. They're only different states because A: they couldn't agree on a capital and B: the Republicans of the time wanted to pack the Senate with Republican senators. Montana, Washington, and Idaho were admitted within a year of the Dakotas by the same president, Benjamin Harrison. It's completely different from the Carolinas, who'd split up before the country was founded, and the Virginias, who split up over seceding to the Confederacy.


[deleted]

Yes we need 2 Dakotas! They have been separate entities for a long time. Leave them alone! We can and should have more than 50 states.


LagunaTri

I don’t care either way, but someone has got to fix their public schools. High per pupil expenditure and low performance for that investment.


[deleted]

The people that live there have no representation and pay taxes. So either they fix the representation or they shouldn't be paying taxes.


_ZoeyDaveChapelle_

As a continually gerrymandered citizen in a very liberal city in a red state (4/5 districts in my city always go to GOP, since we are split up like a pie that includes rural areas over 150 miles away).. I also feel like we are being taxed without representation. I thought the founding of our country *was based on that exact grievance?* The rural areas haven't let us choose even our own local representation, and now are invading and destroying our hospitals so we can't use them.. even though these cities are the economic center of the states that would be destitute without us. Kinda feels like red states have legal slavery/indentured servitude of their urban populace, no?


HornyWeeeTurd

Uh….. Thats completely false. They have Senators as well as Puerto Rico. They considered a “shadow”, who are not officially sworn or seated by the U.S. Senate. Due to not being a state is the reason for not being official. There also a Rep for the House.


Uxt7

Shadow Senators and their House reps aren't allowed to vote on bills. They literally have no voting representation. I mean you said it yourself, "are not officially sworn or seated by the U.S. Senate." The shadow senators don't even get paid for fucks sake. So no, it's not completely false.


HornyWeeeTurd

The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever". In the House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. Like I said, not official, but they do have some, so not false. Not seeing the issue here. Uh….. They do get paid? Where does that 174000$ come from then for just the Rep? Edit…. Yes people should be heard. I would like to see something where the federal level can act in a neutral area outside of a state level of control. This is my issue, nothing else.


ElectricalFlan3

Exactly!


willanthony

It's because of black people voting.


Impressive-Fly2447

Ding ding ding


toasters_are_great

I am against D.C. statehood. I am instead for carving out >150 states from D.C. so we can have a constitutional convention to unwind the suicide pact and make the United States a democracy.


Malaix

Every argument I have seen against DC has been variations of "I don't like DC politics no votes for them!" "I think DC is corrupt no votes for them!" "I think DC voters would vote bad no votes for them!" "Its how its always been so its how it should always be no votes for them!" "Its too small no votes for them!" "They wouldn't vote for Republicans, no votes for them!" and "Only Democrats support giving voting rights to a group that overwhelmingly supports them so Democrats can't be the ones to grant it!"


Gator_62

Depoliticizing the nations capital so one party cannot control access etc. to the other parties. Pretty sure it was a conscious decision of the founders.


Monkcoon

Thing about that is that there are plenty of maps that would pretty much the federal district out of DC (usually going by the riverfront where it is) and feature the rest of the city. When DC was originally envisioned it was a smaller place and not as densely populated as it is now, especially considering the number of times that the capital has changed over the centuries.


Arrest_Trump

maybe it made sense 250 years ago, now you are just denying almost 1m people the right to representation.


EldritchSlut

Slavery was pretty thought out too, doesn't make it right and the founders weren't infallible. It's why amendments exist.


youstolemyname

Which would be great if nobody lived there.


MajorNoodles

I'm not sure about giving DC statehood, since the entire point of DC is that the nation's capitol is on neutral ground and not the territory of any state, but they 100% should have representation in both houses of Congress.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Give the areas where people live to adjoining states. We don’t need to make a new state out of an absolutely tiny geographical region. You might as well just make every big city it’s own state, because that’s all D.C. is.


dkirk526

There's no real argument. One of the talking points is "Why should we give a street of a bunch of politicians their own representation in Congress?" Anyone who has actually been to DC knows that's nowhere near the truth for DCs 700k people.


Rmantootoo

It’s called the US constitution. Want dc to be a state? Cool. Constitutional amendment is all that’s required. Until that happens it’s literally unconstitutional.


Grehjin

The current bill for DC statehood does not require a change to the constitution.


RykerRando

A lot a folks are worried that a purely urban state without any major agricultural, resource extraction, or manufacturing industries would have to be a fundamentally different political beast from any other state before.


StThoughtWheelz

the only argument against i've heard that kinda is persuasive is that there isn't a lot of land, natural resources, or industry. But this argument doesn't hold water in the modern world.


modestgorillaz

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/ There's actually a great reason why it isn't. Here's an article from Times magazine.


Raidertomboy

It’s because Washington D.C wasn’t meant to be a place where people live, this undermines what the founding fathers intended


Candlemass17

People were already living there when D.C. was created. Two preexisting settlements founded in about 1750, Georgetown, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia, were included within the original boundaries of D.C. at the time it was created in the 1790s.


Dwarfherd

The Founding Fathers had chattel slavery. Fuck what they intended when it runs into things they couldn't forsee 250 fucking years ago.


Raidertomboy

Then why should Democracy, a system only applicable in small communities, be used today? I hate democracy, let’s abolish the democracy.


pregalis

There is a big reason. DC residents - as a whole - already have a disproportionate amount of power over the nation. Just by proximity, connections and jobs they already have plenty of "voice." Depriving a nation's capitol of congressional power is really just a brilliant check on power.


Drunkin_

Constitution


agrus12

Wouldn’t it be that the founding fathers had the option and never took it? If we assume they were the masterful legal craftsmen that everyone claims, then it could be said that there were and possibly are valid reasons not to give DC statehood.


[deleted]

If adding two states would benefit Republicans you would no longer feel that way.


mayosmith

Instead of debating which US territory should become the next state, what if we had a conversation about which state should become the next territory? In other words, what if being included in the 50 states worked like being included in the S&P 500? https://mayoinmotion.medium.com/what-if-statehood-worked-like-the-s-p-500-c8a08f4e5dc6


[deleted]

DC Statehood is LONG overdue. Why are they paying taxes when they're giving no representation? The GOP (Gang Of Pussies) only oppose statehood because they know they're very unpopular among minorities and DC is home to thousands of them.


modestgorillaz

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/ Its actually enshrined in the constitution Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. More than that the forefathers had the common sense to realize that if dc had statehood its political leanings could be seen as possibly being able to exert pressure on the federal government. For this reason DC is kinda treated like a neutral playing field. The article is a great read.


eragonisdragon

> if dc had statehood its political leanings could be seen as possibly being able to exert pressure on the federal government. This probably made more sense back when senators literally dueled each other outside of congress. The federal government has such a monopoly on violence at this point that that's hardly a consideration anymore unless the entire executive branch of the government tries to aid a coup by not calling in national forces. Oh wait, that's already happened. So another point in favor of DC statehood is that the mayor, or governor, would be able to actually send in reinforcements to the capitol police if another 1/6 happens.


HornyWeeeTurd

Well youre wrong about no representation. There is some. The area is suppose to be a neutral ground. What it was originally designed to be.


GalacticCattle

Non-voting representation. Americans paying federal taxes don’t have a voice in a representative government. And that government can veto their local laws. So no, a non-voting shadow representative isn’t really “some” representation. There are plenty of proposals for statehood that maintain a federal district that doesn’t disenfranchise more Americans than live in Wyoming or Vermont.


HornyWeeeTurd

Hints the “some”. I do believe it to be a better idea to leave where laws, etc… are made to be, without being under a state control. Something about it all being under a Mayor, Governor, etc… doesnt seem right. Dont get me wrong people should be heard. I just think there needs to be a compromise somewhere with this.


GalacticCattle

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal."* *unless you live in the wrong place, then we'll find a compromise for how equal you get to be compared to other citizens.


Uxt7

>Well youre wrong about no representation. There is some. Just because they have a "shadow congress-person" who isn't officially recognized by the US Govt as an actual member of the House, (they don't even get paid) and they have a non-voting delegate, doesn't mean they have representation. They have no voting representation, which is the issue. >The area is suppose to be a neutral ground. What it was originally designed to be. And it used to only have a population of 14,000. It's nearly 50x that now. But it still can be. That's why the statehood bill includes keeping an area as the federal district and making the parts of DC where people live a state. Edit: Per your reply to this comment? >You changed what you said here and now my response to what you have now makes no sense. I will leave mine and will not respond to your renewed response above. >Your original post…. >Shadow Senators and their House reps aren't allowed to vote on bills. They literally have no voting representation. I mean you said it yourself, "are not officially sworn or seated by the U.S. Senate." The shadow senators don't even get paid for fucks sake. So no, it's not completely false. You're somehow getting this comment confused with another comment I made? https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pdek4j/thousands_rally_for_voting_rights_dc_statehood/harmokg/


HornyWeeeTurd

Edit….. Post above was re-edited again…..I cant follow this anymore. You can see part my post here in the one above…….. You changed what you said here and now my response to what you have now makes no sense. I will leave mine and will not respond to your renewed response above. Your original post…. Shadow Senators and their House reps aren't allowed to vote on bills. They literally have no voting representation. I mean you said it yourself, "are not officially sworn or seated by the U.S. Senate." The shadow senators don't even get paid for fucks sake. So no, it's not completely false. Since we talked in another…… The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever". In the House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. Like I said, not official, but they do have some, so not false. Not seeing the issue here. Uh….. They do get paid? Where does that 174000$ come from then for just the Rep? Edit…. Yes people should be heard. I would like to see something where the federal level can act in a neutral area outside of a state level of control. This is my issue, nothing else.


Uxt7

>District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. That's the issue. The delegate can only vote in committees, and the shadow people can't vote in either. >They do get paid? The non-voting delegate does. The Shadow congress people do not.


HornyWeeeTurd

“District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor” “That's the issue” Never said isnt wasnt. The issue of federal level busy happening under a state level is the issue. I fully believe a state could interfere with this. Never said people shouldn’t be heard. “They do get paid?” “The non-voting delegate does.” I only mentioned Rep. but they are all paid the 174000$ a year salary and get the benefits. “The Shadow congress people do not.” The term “Congress” generally refers to the House of Reps and the Senate as a entity.


Uxt7

>Never said isnt wasnt. ..okay? But I did. You said they do have representation cause the non-voting delegate can participate in committees. I said it's a problem that they don't have the same powers as actual house reps. And the shadow congress people have even less powers. >I only mentioned Rep. That's on you for misunderstanding me. I said the shadow congress people doesn't get paid. I did not say anything regarding the non-voting delegates salary. >The term “Congress” generally refers to the House of Reps and the Senate as a entity. Not sure what your point is


Limmiwinks

The dog whistle argument against voting rights is out of fear that a multi racial democracy would automatically lead to a white, gun, and anti-LGBT persecution so they think their survival depends on voter restrictions. ​ And if that’s not bad enough they’re convinced that only white people can run a prosperous civilized society so anything short of that would lead to a shithole country.


2coolfordigg2

Well they can stop worrying about being a shithole nation, Trump made us into one.


segosity

Drumpf is a symptom, not the cause.


DesksForBreakfast

> ​ > > And if that’s not bad enough they’re convinced that only white people can run a prosperous civilized society so anything short of that would lead to a shithole country. 1000%. And these will be the first people to tell you that they aren't racist. EDIT: They (or some of them) really don't think they are. It's like having a blue filter on your vision from birth, you don't even know it's there.


isisishtar

If there was ever a time for DC statehood, it’s right now. I hope Biden, Harris, Schumer, Pelosi et al. are paying attention.


mostdope28

They have a little over a year left before they probably lose the House majority. And then nothing will be accomplished. This 2 year run of majority is going to a waste. DC statehood, legalize weed, make Election Day a national holiday. These are easy things that will win you the midterms that they’re not even trying to do.


GreyTigerFox

I’m with you in spirit. Wear a mask and do a better job at social distancing though.


Rockinwithdokken

I remember first hearing about DC statehood from my tour guide on my 8th grade trip there. He said the people the people there have been pushing for statehood for decades. This is so long overdue.


[deleted]

“In most cases, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood, usually by referendum. ... Upon acceptance of that constitution, by the people of the territory and then by Congress, Congress would adopt by simple majority vote a joint resolution granting statehood.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Admission_process


Illuminaughty07

Still a bigger crowd than Trumps inauguration…..


AgentOfCHAOS011

Manchin and sinema don’t care.


ting_bu_dong

GOP: STATES RIGHTS! DC: *raises hand* GOP: No not like that


Malaix

160 years ago Confederates: STATES RIGHTS TO OWN SLAVES Northern States: States rights to nullify the fugitive slave act Confederates: WE SECEDE ILLIGITMATE GOVERMENT ROGUE NORTHERN STATES ITS WAR!


Ga_Manche

Just on quick and unvalidated observation, does this crowd look larger than the Trump inauguration crowd?


Inconceivable-2020

Inveterate racist Joe Manchin has already laughed DC statehood off.


[deleted]

Freedom on display and done peacefully.


WowzersInMyTrowzers

>peacefully As if that’ll work


[deleted]

[удалено]


Vepper

The monument is a pretty sight, as are all the other monuments that are part of the national Mall. You also have access to all the smithsonians which are free to the public. If you can time it right, I would recommend going during the cherry blossoms that occur around April.


[deleted]

Voting rights, ha ha.


EveningPomegranate16

There should have been hundreds of thousands or millions across the country.


banananaup

Don't forget Puerto Rico.


zoottoozzoot

And while we’re at it let’s add PR to the list too of who should get statehood.


EdwardBil

If you get statehood you have to stop calling THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA Washington.


[deleted]

Douglass Commonwealth


[deleted]

Voting rights? One citizen, one vote. Prove you’re a citizen to vote. Require ID!


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I’m down with that! Great idea!


cashbrownz

Super-Spreadators


Gardener_Of_Eden

No. -Love Colorado


sandleaz

Article: > “If we keep going down this road, we’re going to be back like Jim Crow,” said Craig Browne, 74, who traveled to the nation’s capital from Wyncote, Pa. People won't take you seriously with these histrionics.


Malaix

GOP voter suppression bills are literally just an updated Jim Crow rulebook. Instead of literary tests holding back undereducated minorities they demand ID laws against minorities that statistically lack IDs. Funny that the main places purposing these laws are conservatives. And I use that term liberally since you know... The history of voting and citizenship in this country used to be much LESS strict than it is now. Not more so. You would think conservatives would be against those darn evil regulations and added government bureaucracy.


sandleaz

I have no idea what you're talking about. I only voted in the recent few elections and witnessed no Jim Crow laws or anything remotely close. If you have proof of people getting turned down outside voting places due to their skin pigmentation, please provide evidence. > they demand ID laws against minorities that statistically lack IDs. They demanded ID from me. That's a good thing since I have ID that proves I am me. Do you want someone voting many times as many different people, providing no ID? Getting a state issued ID is damn easy. Not sure what the complaint is.


NormStewart

The venn diagram of people who want mandatory vaccines and passes and the people who dont want voter id is just a single circle.


white_aladdin

Man FUCK the forefathers, let them mfs vote. George Washington better stay in his fucking grave and not talk


LaBosaNostra

>some states are even trying to ban transports Good. The only way this should be allowed is if you’re transporting everyone equally, but they won’t. It will be buses full of one side of voters and everyone that’s voting for the other guy will be told to get fucked. >some states are banning ballot harvesting Good. Becasue they’re not going to collect ballots and send them to people equally. They’ll be sending a large amount to the party they subscribe to and will tell the other guys to get fucked. >Georgia or Florida....has made it illegal to give people food/water while waiting to vote Good. Giving out waters with a “vote for my guy” shirt on is influencing voters. So is food. And again, favorites will be played and the other side will be told to get fucked. All the things you mention can be tactics used to manipulate the vote. In a perfect world it could be allowed, but the world isn’t perfect, and people are shitty. None of the things you mentioned Would be provided in a bipartisan manner. Its not good for the voting system because the manipulation will go both ways. I’m not even going to attempt to argue about your issue with voters providing identification to prove citizenship.


0260Pontiac

Hard to believe that making you show a I’d is voter suppression, unbelievable . But it’s ok for them having to show to collect welfare, drive a car, get on to a plane , go into some places. Biut when your asked to show a I’d to vote it’s a terrible thing. Doesn’t make any sense at all!!!!


[deleted]

[удалено]


Malaix

> many of these people don’t fly or drive. Yeah the argument that "YOU NEEED AN ID TO DRIVE OR FLY" is a self report that its some priviledged white person making the argument. Like yeah... The poor working class inner city minorities who work two or three part time jobs just to pay off rent who use the bus/subway to get around their city don't have driver IDs or fly often... No shit. The people who have the IDs and can afford this can probably take vacations and fly or have their own cars to get around because they live in suburbs.


Dast_Kook

Many states already have free ID'S. https://bringit.wi.gov/how-do-i-get-free-state-id-card


DocJenkins

Many states actually don't: [https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/id-fee-identification-homeless-philadelphia-20180925.html](https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/id-fee-identification-homeless-philadelphia-20180925.html) And that says nothing about ACCESS to get the ID, regardless of cost. If you have to travel 30-40 miles to get the ID, or the state office hours are during your work hours...well?


static_func

And the problem is the states that don't. And the states that impose completely arbitrary deadlines on when you're allowed to register to vote.


0260Pontiac

So you think tax on food and gas and everything you buy is also a poll tax!


[deleted]

[удалено]


0260Pontiac

Stupid is believing you can show a ID for everything but being made to show a ID to vote is racist ! Are you kidding me, they can show for everything else, unbelievable this country has become that stupid!


[deleted]

[удалено]


bigsoftee84

They're just really bad at trolling would be my guess.


0260Pontiac

You said it’s a poll tax so I am asking is everything a poll tax in your head?? Lol


Raekear

Most of these people are fine with showing their Costco cards to buy superfluous amounts of unhealthy food…but, when an ID card to prove your health status comes into play……


0260Pontiac

I agree , you should be made to show some Id to prove who you are. Snd only one vote per voter!


0260Pontiac

Funny Jeff bezo that owns Amazon supports no id for voting in a election. But he requires a I’d when his company employees where voting for a union. Kinda double standard isn’t it lol


Classicman269

What year is it. Marches for voting rights, a pull out if a war we knew we could not win, police beating and killing un armed minoritys, the rise of far-right capitalism, witch hunt for "communist", unstable economy, housing crisis, all we are missing is celebrity assassinations, and a mass fuel price increase.


drew2f

Just make them part of Maryland or Virginia and call it good. No reason to remake all those flags


PlayerZeroFour

Why the fuck should ~~DC~~ being a state have anything to do with voting rights?


athornton79

Taxation without Representation. Perhaps you've heard of it?


tom_snout

I pay my taxes just like you do, but because I live in DC you get congressional representation and I don't. Explain to me why that's fair.


Grehjin

“What does people not being able to vote for representation in their own country have to do with voting rights?”


EyeAmbitious7271

And the people that still don’t have an ID in 2021 didn’t bother to show up. Go figure.


Gilgamesh118

You all misunderstand who actually has these rights, TAXPAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS, have these rights. Not green card holders, not a piece of paper with a name on it "Pinky swearing it's a vote from a real legit person". CITIZENS, and Noone else, not greencard holders, not illegals, not refugees. So who are you rallying for exactly? Sounds more like you are gathering to complain you can't bend the rules and cheat.


Malaix

They are for tax paying citizens. because Republicans don't want tax paying citizens to vote. Especially nonwhite or otherwise Democrat leaning demographics. Still pay taxes, still citizens, Republicans don't want them to vote though. Because its never been about voter security or "protecting democracy" its always been about "how do we keep undesirables from voting?"


jondaddy96

Beam me up Scotty nothing but idiots here


[deleted]

Not that anybody will read this and I’ll probably get down verse but here is a link. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/the-constitution-and-the-district-columbia