Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Steve Benen: Norms and traditions are irrelevant. Propriety is irrelevant. Restraint is irrelevant. Values are irrelevant. Precedent is irrelevant. If a political party is acting within the limits of the law, there's no reason for that party to pause in pursuit of its goals. Why did Republicans do this? Because they could.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The rule of 'because we can,' which is the rule that is being applied today, is one that leads away from a lot of the traditions and commitments and values that the Senate has long embodied," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said.

"Don't think that when you have established the rule of 'because we can' that should the shoe be on the other foot that you will have any credibility to come to us and say, yeah, I know you can do that but you shouldn't because of X, Y, Z," he said. "Your credibility to make that argument in the future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue to proceed in this way."

The political dynamic is striking in its simplicity: if you have the power, you exercise that power. Period. Full stop.

If Democrats have the power, there's an expectation that they will exercise that power. There are no rules or laws preventing Democrats from taking such steps, so there's no reason they should show any restraint before taking them.

And when GOP senators howl about Democratic indifference toward norms, traditions, and values, and demand to know why the new majority is governing in such a maximalist way, it will fall to Democratic officials to say, "Because we can."

The pendulum is about to do what pendulums have to do, and that is predictably swing in the other direction. I'm seeing a long dormant force begin to stir in anticipation of its ascendancy once again.
"They have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind."
And by the grace of all that's righteous and just, so they shall.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-27 09:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Lets hope the Dems actually have the testicular fortitude to do that

#2 | Posted by qcp at 2020-10-27 10:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And by the grace of all that's righteous and just, so they shall.

#1 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 20

Amen.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2020-10-27 11:20 AM | Reply

*facepalm*

Look guys, you are absolutely correct that Reps have shown their true hypocrisy. They can't deny it. If it's a problem people don't like, they will vote the other way.

However, grasping at straws to try to make yourselves look like heros is why Dems don't get more votes as it is. Dems do the exact same things as Reps. When they have the majority, they do things "because they can". This was never more evidence than the passing of the ACA. The Dem majorities followed the law and got it passed "because they can". Just because you add a label to it doesn't mean it's all of a sudden a new concept. You know it. Reps know it. Everyone knows it. This is another example of neither party being able to take the high road. They all just dumb themselves down to name-calling and pointing fingers. Be better than that. Just accept the reality of the situation that has been proven over and over again. Just because you lost this battle doesn't mean you won't have many more wins when you become the majority.

#4 | Posted by humtake at 2020-10-27 11:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

#4 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT

What's going on is not politics as usual. It's a fight between good and evil taking place in what's probably the last frame of time evil can be quashed will relative ease.

Some of us (looking at you) are responsible for getting us to this place. Put your shoulder to the wheel now and help us get out, or please just STFU.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2020-10-27 11:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#4

Your take is the moral equivalent of an abusive husband who wants to cuddle with the wife he just bruised up.

No dude... You go to jail.

Welcome to Republican jail.

#6 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-27 12:05 PM | Reply

If Dems get any pushback, their reply should simply be:

"We're going to be playing by the Mitch McConnell Rules from now on."

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-27 12:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The remarkable thing here is that otherwise "institutionalist" Democratic senators - like Whitehouse, -----, and Van Hollins so far - are the ones foreshadowing what they expect to come in the aftermath of Mitch McConnell's scorched earth tactics over the last 12 years. None of these members are viewed as "leftish" like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, so from the outside it appears that the pain felt by non-conservatives all over America from the power-grabs of Supreme Court and appellate seats is shared within the Democratic caucus as well.

None of this sturm and drang will amount to anything unless the Democrats win control of both the Senate and the White House after next week's results become final. But I have faith that at last the Senate Democrats finally understand the rules of the game they've been playing with not only one hand, but both hands and feet securely tied behind their backs for far too long.

It's Machiavelli time America, and the Dems better come prepared to play for keeps - just like the GOP has taught them so well to do.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-27 12:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think the truth is that this is a cerebral move, not an emotional move. I don't think there will be much objection to it, despite bleating from suddenly soft-hearted hypocrites like Humtake and others.

There's no good argument for not using the McConnell rules.

It's like the Scorpion and the Frog story. There is no evidence whatsoever that if Republicans get power again, they will use every tactic, legal and illegal, to advance their power.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt makes no logical sense.

I want logical people running things.

#9 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-27 12:26 PM | Reply

*They will NOT use every tactic that is.

Sorry, I was being Irregardless

#10 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-27 12:27 PM | Reply

Pretending our party just learned how Game Theory works is a silly piece of propaganda to run with.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-10-27 12:39 PM | Reply

"Dems better come prepared to play for keeps"

Don't get your hopes up. That's off-brand for them.

#12 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-27 01:14 PM | Reply

Dems do the exact same things as Reps.
#4 | Posted by humtake

Really?

Show me an example of democrats using their power to prevent republicans from voting, like republicans do to democrats, or shut the ---- up.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-27 01:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Dems aren't going to fight dirty. The corporate sellout dems we're voting for aren't going to fight back. Biden has even said things will "go back to normal" after trump is gone. He's clueless about what that entire party has become, what they're willing to do, and what it will take to resist them.

Just like obama let the bankers get away with crashing the economy in interest of keeping things calm (which ended up making swing voters elect trump), biden will let trump get away with every crime he committed in office, which will set the precedent that republican criminal presidents are totally above the law.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-27 01:24 PM | Reply

"Dems aren't going to fight dirty."

Define "dirty"

Republicans have been using a scorched earth policy.

We don't have to do that and destroy our own resources and party in the process.

But, we do need to take off the kid gloves and the training wheels now.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-27 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Republicans are using both a scorched earth policy and a flat Earth policy.

They found a semi-new constituency as well - brainwashable idiots.

That's their new coalition, and to be fair it's still making up a barely minority of the US.

Sad to say (seriously), in addition to reforming the party's standing in many states Democrats need to court off a piece of the idiot vote.

I can't believe I'm writing that but it's true.

#16 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-27 01:57 PM | Reply

"Dems aren't going to fight dirty."

Define "dirty"

#15 | Posted by donnerboy

Doing anything that the founders didn't criminalize in order to gain power and cheat elections. Break norms and traditions.

Gerrymander worse than repubs do. Eliminate polling places in white districts to give them a taste of long voting lines, while adding polling places in minority districts. Purge white voters off the voting rolls. Stack the courts. Add more states. Offer favors to hostile foreign nations if they'll help us win elections.

Stop worrying about paying for stuff or the debt, since repubs never have to worry about those things.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-27 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#17

All of the above will not happen, but oh... it's a great plot for a bestselling novel. I could run with that for a series.

What I would aspire to do is make all attempts at voter suppression and foreign interference explicitly illegal with clear penalties, including immediate removal from elected office, as with foreign interference.

In fact make legislation clearly defining foreign interference and clear penalties.

I do agree with adding lower court positions and possibly 2 to 6 more SCOTUS seats. I would even say 2 for the sake of bipartisanship.

DC and Puerto Rico become states by January 1 2022.

#18 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-27 02:17 PM | Reply

Republicans have been using a scorched earth policy.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy

And all it gave them was the supreme court for decades, the senate for 8 years and counting, massive tax cuts for the rich, deregulation for polluters, and judges up and down the judiciary.

Yeah why would dems want to win that much?

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-27 03:38 PM | Reply

Dems only run almost every major city in the US. Half of the governors, DC government, the government of every territory, the NE and West Coats. Oh god we're losing so bad!

ffs.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-10-27 03:47 PM | Reply

Dems only run almost every major city in the US. Half of the governors, DC government, the government of every territory, the NE and West Coats. Oh god we're losing so bad!

ffs.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Running a city is not running the country. We outnumber repubs but they have all the national power because of how well they cheat. Too bad repubs can't govern as well as they can find new ways to cheat.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-27 04:14 PM | Reply

Dems will need 52 seats to pursue a strategy of anything Mitch did we can do too, because I expect Manchen will vote with the GOP if the Dems try to push the envelope. But when you see moderates like King and ----- talking like radicals, you know the Dem caucus knows that change needs to happen, and won't happen if they continue to play the role of Charlie Brown with the football. Dems need wins in AZ, Maine, CO, NC and Iowa to ensure they can disregard the GOP and Mitch's whining.

#22 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-10-27 04:44 PM | Reply

That's funny, the editing software used by the Retort edited out the surname of the Senator from Delaware from my last post, because it's also a word used against our AA brethren. I used it correctly, in referring to the Senator from Delaware and Senator Angus King. Ain't technology grand?

#23 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-10-27 07:44 PM | Reply

I think it's a matter of weighing the consequences.

Republicans weighed the end result against the consequences for pushing through Barrett.

They probably figured Trump's destiny is likely set in stone and Barrett or no Barrett, the election will be what it is.

Now the Dems will have to weigh their end result against the consequences for taking retaliatory action.

Just because they can, doesn't mean they will.

#24 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-27 08:05 PM | Reply

Just because they can, doesn't mean they will.
#24 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Which has been the Dem status quo, allowing the power to shift to the 'overall' minority party.

Do you think Trump trolled the Dems enough to break the status quo?

#25 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-10-27 08:29 PM | Reply

Now the Dems will have to weigh their end result against the consequences for taking retaliatory action.

It would be amusing to watch the "right" shriek in righteous indignation at the "left" doing the exact same things they have done.

Elections have consequences... the jury is still out on this one.

#26 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-27 08:29 PM | Reply

Republicans have a motto. Elections have consequences - when Republicans win them. Power for me, norms for thee. With power comes responsibility. Our democratic order is endangered not only by Trumpism but by the deeper Republican corruption which both created it and sustained it in power. The danger we face is not that we will lose some incremental access to health care or see the pace of climate action further slowed. It is that we will see the right of electoral majorities to make these decisions at all come to an end. If Democrats were to get the power to begin the process of resetting and entrenching the democratic order and fail to do so it would be a grand failure and indeed a betrayal.

Josh Marshall

This.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-27 09:38 PM | Reply

The question is will the public view an attempt to add justices as vindictive and reactionary rather than proactive leadership.

Would it just make them look childish?

The Republicans were proactive and came from a position of strength.

Democrats will need a logical explanation for adding seats that won't just look like childish revenge.

#28 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-27 10:49 PM | Reply

"Would it just make them look childish?"

No. It would make them look like responsible adults.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-27 10:52 PM | Reply

"The Republicans were proactive and came from a position of strength."

What exactly do you mean by that?
How was it proactive?
All they did was react to RBG dying.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-27 10:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Democrats will need a logical explanation for adding seats that won't just look like childish revenge."

It doesn't look like childish revenge because the GOP broke their own promise to America they made just four years ago.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-27 10:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In 1869 the SC was expanded from 7 to 9 justices because there were then 9 circuit courts;Up from seven due to expansion and new states.

We now have 13 circuit courts. Do the math.

We would expand the court to 13 and sell that new number with a little history lesson for the electorate. Republicans love history. They constantly talk about American traditions.

Expanding the court is nothing new. We need more justices to cover the larger caseloads of the modern age.

They just would happen to be all new democratic appointees.

Problem solved. The nutter weakened into hopeful irrelevance.

#32 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-27 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

And what makes the residents of D.C. and Puerto Rico different from the residents of Virginia and Hawaii?

Are they less than equal?

Seems logical to me that they should become states.

#33 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-28 09:48 AM | Reply

How far does someone have to move from DC to live in Maryland or Virginia?

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 09:52 AM | Reply

What would be the minimum annual budget for DC to set up a state?

Do residents of DC wanna pay for that?

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 09:54 AM | Reply

Dems aren't stupid; they saw how Moscow Mitch worked against the will of the American people when he frustrated President Obama at every turn, in particular with the courts. Nobody in recent memory has been so recalcitrant; Dems realize that politics in general and the Senate specifically are broken thanks to Moscow Mitch and Combover Quisling. Dems will do what they have to do to govern, including balancing the courts.

#36 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-10-28 10:03 AM | Reply

#34
#35

Who gives a f---?

#37 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-28 10:44 AM | Reply

What would be the minimum annual budget for DC to set up a state?

Do residents of DC wanna pay for that?

#35 | POSTED BY EBERLY

They already pay for that - it's called FEDERAL taxes. Every state receives money from the federal government, right? D.C. should be no different in that regards. As a matter of fact, much of D.C.'s current obligations are paid through Congressional disbursements that the local
D.C. government has to beg for hat-in-hand.

Once a state, D.C. can set up it's own budgets, taxation and expenditures independent of Congress - as it should be.

#38 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 10:49 AM | Reply

How far does someone have to move from DC to live in Maryland or Virginia?
#34 | POSTED BY EBERLY

What in the world is the thought process (for lack of a better word) behind this question?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-28 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do residents of DC wanna pay for that?
#35 | POSTED BYEBERLY

Last I checked, DC had the third highest "state" tax in the Union, behind Alaska and Hawaii.

You think DC residents want to pay for the status quo?

Is Eberly like an IQ 85 individual?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-28 11:39 AM | Reply

Republicans weighed the end result against the consequences for pushing through Barrett.

#24 | Posted by BillJohnson

Yeah and they concluded that tax cuts for the rich and possibly saving some fetuses is worth the price of putting america into putin's hands - a man who wants to destroy us.

You're only further illustrating the stupidity of your cult.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-28 01:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

possibly saving some fetuses

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Emphasis on possibly.

Reliable reporting on abortions is gone once it is illegal.

#42 | Posted by Zed at 2020-10-28 01:26 PM | Reply

"They already pay for that - it's called FEDERAL taxes."

Have you seen how your state budget looks?

Property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, etc...all sources of revenue to run the state's govt.

There is no way DC would become a state.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 02:27 PM | Reply

"Property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, etc...all sources of revenue to run the state's govt.
There is no way DC would become a state."

If the hypothetical State of DC comprises the totality of the of the City of DC and nothing more wouldn't all the city government essentially become the state government and the city taxation just become the state taxation? There wouldn't be much need for greater revenue nor duplicative or overlapping services.

#44 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-28 02:36 PM | Reply

44

I suppose but that's also why DC wouldn't become a state.

How do you separate the "city" of DC from the Federal Govt?

And if you make it a state, then again, how do you separate it from the Federal Govt?

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 02:39 PM | Reply

Have you seen how your state budget looks? Property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, etc...all sources of revenue to run the state's govt.

I gave you the answer that you seemed to ignore:

Once a state, D.C. can set up it's own budgets, taxation and expenditures independent of Congress - as it should be.
Don't you realize that every territory that became a state had to do the very same things? Why would you think that the District couldn't follow suit?

They only have 50 other examples to learn from. It's not like it hasn't been done before.

#46 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 02:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How do you separate the "city" of DC from the Federal Govt?

All of this was laid out when the House passed the bill granting statehood to the District. The actual district would only encompass federal buildings and property and the rest of the area would then comprise the city of New Columbia in the state of the Douglass Commonwealth - which Georgetown and other areas would also be within.

#47 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 02:49 PM | Reply

"How do you separate the "city" of DC from the Federal Govt?"

Is Eberly truly unaware that D.C. has a Mayor?

That's impossible. Eberly surely knows who Marion Berry is. All Republicans do.

So, why is Eberly asking such stupid questions?

Or are those smart questions when you choose to be a big dummy and a Republican (same difference, I know) for purely political reasons?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-28 02:49 PM | Reply

"Don't you realize that every territory that became a state had to do the very same things?"

yes.

"Why would you think that the District couldn't follow suit?"

because they can't.

Come on fellas....you guys aren't interested in DC citizens being represented in the form of a State.

your interest ends where we insert 2 democratic party senators into the Senate.

Honest question.....is your interest really about the poor citizens of DC not have their own congressional representation?

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 02:50 PM | Reply

There is no way DC would become a state.

#43 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Only because it would shift the balance of power to democrats.

Republicans obviously cannot allow that. Ever. Even if it was the right thing to do.

But yes we can!

Because we can!

(If we can!)

#50 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-28 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"is your interest really about the poor citizens of DC not have their own congressional representation?"

Here's a better question: Since they have all the responsibilities of the States, why do they not have all the rights and representations?

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 02:54 PM | Reply

"Only because it would shift the balance of power to democrats.
Republicans obviously cannot allow that. Ever. Even if it was the right thing to do."

I agree.

The citizens of DC have been existing for a long time without it.

why now?

Why at all?

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 02:55 PM | Reply

"Why at all?"

1. They have all the responsibilities.
2. They have none of the representation.
3. They have ~20% more citizens than Wyoming.

And while we're at it...why not merge the Dakotas?

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#49

The population of Washington D.C. is greater than both Vermont and Wyoming and almost equal to 2 other states and its residents pay the highest per capita federal taxes in America.

So yes, they deserve to be represented as a state just like the rest of Americans are. And since it is wholly within Congress' right to grant statehood, you can rest assured that they will become a state should the Democrats gain control of all three branches of government.

#54 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 03:01 PM | Reply

51

fair question.

Is that what you want? The citizens of DC being adequately represented in.....DC? LOL

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:04 PM | Reply

And hell yes, Ebs, it's about political power as well. The difference being is that usually when the Democrats want to do something, it actually expands liberty and rights without negatively impacting others - outside of their feelings.

How would DC statehood negatively affect any other state or its citizens? It wouldn't. It would be a matter of making them equal to everyone else, it gives them no advantage over others.

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 03:05 PM | Reply

-So yes, they deserve to be represented as a state just like the rest of Americans are"

Actually, my town is isn't it's own state....it's located inside a state.

Why not just annex the city into the State of Maryland, which adds a congressional rep or 2 to the state and allows all citizens of Maryland to vote for their senate and HoR reps.....like the rest of us get to?

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:07 PM | Reply

-How would DC statehood negatively affect any other state or its citizens?

Understand I'm being devil's advocate......I wouldn't stand in the way of it as though I'm being screwed or something.

You can chase Boaz over that......

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:08 PM | Reply

why not merge the Dakotas?

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Much as other in the U.S. would like to see that. I doubt if the Dakotas want it. Considering States rights, I can't imagine it ever happening.

#59 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-10-28 03:09 PM | Reply

The citizens of DC being adequately represented in.....DC?

Do you want to give up your senators and congressional representation? Why should any American expect less?

Again, designating statehood is within Congress' constitutional power. Why do you have a problem with Congress following the Constitution?

#60 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 03:10 PM | Reply

-And while we're at it...why not merge the Dakotas?

Excellent point as well.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:11 PM | Reply

"Is that what you want? The citizens of DC being adequately represented in.....DC?"

You mean, like the residents of Topeka are represented in...Topeka?

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 03:13 PM | Reply

"Again, designating statehood is within Congress' constitutional power."

The citizens of no single city have their own state.

If the citizens of DC need their own state...then either join Maryland or move there, or Virginia.

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:13 PM | Reply

-You mean, like the residents of Topeka are represented in...Topeka?

I was just pointing out the irony of it.

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:14 PM | Reply

"Understand I'm being devil's advocate"

The Devil isn't nearly as stupid as your advocacy, Eberly.

Work on that.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-28 03:14 PM | Reply

"why not merge the Dakotas?"

For comparison's sake, Puerto Rico has more than double the population of both Dakotas.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 03:15 PM | Reply

If the citizens of DC need their own state...then either join Maryland or move there, or Virginia.
#63 | POSTED BY EBERLY

That would defeat the purpose of the District.

That would make the district beholden to a state.

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.

US History 101

#67 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-28 03:18 PM | Reply

#67

To clarify, giving statehood to the area no longer a part of the District does not eliminate the federal property that would remain in the District.

The state would encompass the private property and citizens who live outside what would become the smaller District. Madison's vision is no longer operative in today's world where travel around the globe can be accomplished in a matter of hours. In his time it may have taken days if not weeks to travel from states to DC, so the proximity of citizens to the Capitol is meaningless.

And his vision has no constitutional sway whatsoever. Congress is the sole arbiter of statehood, period.

#68 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 03:25 PM | Reply

67

It's over my head.

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:25 PM | Reply

#69

The area now called Washington D.C. would shrink to a much smaller area only inclusive of the White House, monuments, museums and green spaces and federal office buildings. The rest of the area (commercial/residential) would become part of the new state.

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 03:34 PM | Reply

"...the new state."

Columbia?

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 03:35 PM | Reply

Probably the Douglass Commonwealth or perhaps New Columbia, tbd.

#72 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 03:38 PM | Reply

"The area now called Washington D.C. would shrink to a much smaller area only inclusive of the White House, monuments, museums and green spaces and federal office buildings. The rest of the area (commercial/residential) would become part of the new state."

Why? There are Federal buildings all over the United States that don't require a boundary being drawn around them to separate them from the state where it's located.

Why in DC?

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:44 PM | Reply

-The rest of the area (commercial/residential) would become part of Maryland???

Doesn't that solve the problem of giving proper representation to those citizens?

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 03:45 PM | Reply

I've got to split but good discussion.

I don't have a problem with adding a state or 2. I don't give a crap which party it gives an advantage to.

But I question the motives of those who say they are standing up for the citizens of DC....when they are really just advocating for themselves.

#75 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 04:39 PM | Reply

Doesn't that solve the problem of giving proper representation to those citizens?

Nope. Congress does not have the power to change the borders of states, you should know this or a Democratic majority could combine the Dakotas, or split California into multiple states.

All they can do is take federal territory not already a part of a state and designate it for statehood should its citizens want to become a state.

As it regards Puerto Rico, they would likely have to conduct a binding vote as to what they want their designation to be.

#76 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 04:48 PM | Reply

In actuality, there is nothing stopping Congress from considering any and all US territories for statehood should they desire to be one. Think the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

#77 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-28 04:51 PM | Reply

But I question the motives of those who say they are standing up for the citizens of DC....when they are really just advocating for themselves.
#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY

As a former citizen of D.C., let me just say:
You're an ass.
You're exemplary of why Republicans are bad for America.
You are so wrapped up in your own ------ outlook on life, you couldn't possibly imagine other people have different points of view.

You literally can't believe people who believe in democracy actually believe in democracy.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-28 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

But I question the motives of those who say they are standing up for the citizens of DC....when they are really just advocating for themselves.
#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yeah, why do these people REALLLLY want to be represented in their government? Must be some kind of conspiiiiiracy. Let's call Qanon and ask him.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-28 06:58 PM | Reply

And while we're at it...why not merge the Dakotas?

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Better yet, why not give them to Canada? There is nothing there anyway and the people...ugh...

#80 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-10-28 06:59 PM | Reply

Better yet, why not give them to Canada?

S'ok. We already have Saskatchewan.

#81 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-28 07:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

79

Yeah, I was describing you. A total hypocrite who doesn't give a crap about DC citizens who your entire life have been underrepresented.

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 07:57 PM | Reply

A total hypocrite who doesn't give a crap about DC citizens who your entire life have been underrepresented.

#82 | Posted by eberly

A hypocrite is someone who claims to believe in democracy but doesn't think certain people should vote because it would help democrats.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-28 08:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

83

I merely suggested they can vote as residents of Maryland.

But that's not what you want. You're not interested in their representation. You're only interested in YOUR representation

Selfishness and nothing more, stupid.

I'm actually fine with another state.

#84 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 09:05 PM | Reply

"You're not interested in their representation. You're only interested in YOUR representation "

Feel free to suggest other ways the majority can be represented in the majority.

As it is, you have to admit those who represent the minority of voters make the majority of decisions...right?

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 09:44 PM | Reply

"I merely suggested they can vote as residents of Maryland. "

Using that logic, couldn't you vote as a resident of Oklahoma?

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 09:53 PM | Reply

-Feel free to suggest other ways the majority can be represented in the majority.

Prohibit gerrymandering.
Take 2 electoral votes from each state.
Let Maryland have another congressional rep (or 2)

#87 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 09:57 PM | Reply

"Prohibit gerrymandering. "

Easier said than done. Especially with the new SCOTUS.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 10:05 PM | Reply

It's all a tall order.

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-28 10:22 PM | Reply

#87

I'm talking about the larger scale. As it is, land has more power than voters. For example: a million people in the Dakotas have twice the Senatorial power as 20 million people in California. On the state level, Dems could get 75% of the statewide Wisconsin vote, yet not control 50.1% of the legislature.

In the long run, minority control over majority wishes is doomed to fail.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 10:25 PM | Reply

"minority control over majority wishes is doomed to fail."

If not in the public sphere, in day-to-day reality. The vast majority favors sensible gun control. A tiny minority controlling an outsized set of legislators breeds nothing good.

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 10:31 PM | Reply

I merely suggested they can vote as residents of Maryland.

But that's not what you want. You're not interested in their representation. You're only interested in YOUR representation

Selfishness and nothing more, stupid.

I'm actually fine with another state.

#84 | Posted by eberly

Why would maryland politicians represent someone who doesn't live in maryland?

Why not let them vote as citizens of wyoming?

#92 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-29 01:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort