Gov. Pedro Pierluisi: ‘Puerto Rico will be the first truly Hispanic state’

[Dill]

(03-15-2021, 11:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: You have still not agreed that majority rule is a Constitutional principle, and that the filibuster was no part of the Senate “as designed.” 

Not only is this a false statement but it really shows that you tend to argue from a disingenuous position.  I guess I can now understand why you never "see" Fred's antics, it's because you've been learning at his feet.  In any case, I think we're done here.

LOL we were "done" when I documented the Founders' intent regarding majority rule. 

You can't accept the point, because it gives Dems a legitimate reason to "change rules" to restore majority rule. 

And you can't refute it.  So comes the infamous "rinse and repeat":

When you can't show why a "false statement" is false,

you claim it's the other guy who has adopted the "disingenuous position," and can't say how,  

but toss in a Fred-herring for good measure,

based on "antics" you've also never been able to specify, but--and here's the final irony--

attributed to a poster who understands very well the difference between supported and unsupported statements.  

[Dill]

(03-14-2021, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is basically how the argument breaks down.

We have 700K US citizens whose vote do not count in Congress.

Dems want to make those votes count (Added representatives to reflect added votes)

GOP wants to make sure the new votes are added without changing anything.  (No new added representatives.  Instead just dilute to value of the Maryland voters.

Fred, the bolded is how the argument "breaks down" for people outside the District and Maryland. 

They are the mostly concerned about how DC statehood would affect Congressional/national balance of power between the parties.

For DC and MDers, however, the primary issues are rather different. 

For DC, for sure, there are two issues: 1) substantive representation, and 2) control of their own budget and laws. That's why they wanted the representation in the first place. Giving them MD senators and a capitol in Annapolis does not accomplish that. 

They and MD might get a Representative--until the next re-apportionment adjusts the number of Representatives back to the 435 cap.

The national GOP is certainly against adding DC as a state. They've introduced two bills to block statehood.

But the people of MD are also concerned how retrocession would affect their politics--the state senators and representatives they'd have to add, etc.  In the last poll taken in 2016, 44% were against it. A slim majority are for DC statehood.

Retrocession is yet another distraction from D.C. statehood
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/retrocession-is-yet-another-distraction-from-dc-statehood/2020/07/08/b7752700-bfa5-11ea-8908-68a2b9eae9e0_story.html

Whenever D.C. statehood comes up, opponents trot out various distractions. For example, Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) wants the District to pay for changing U.S. flags to 51 stars. A pole tax no doubt.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) backs D.C. retrocession to Maryland. Retrocession has a patina of respectability. Advocates, however, never get to specifics, which would cause massive changes.

Accommodating the District’s more than 700,000 residents would require Maryland to add a slew of state senators and delegates. Regionally, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s board would go from two seats each for the District, Maryland, Virginia and the federal government to who-knows-what.

Would the District’s laws go away? If so, when and how? Would Congress pay for Maryland gaining the District’s residents, vehicles, schools, bonds, etc.? If not, who would?

Finally, there is the District’s $16 billion budget. It spends its own money without Congress. Would it lose control to Annapolis?
The further you are from retrocession, the better it looks. Closer scrutiny shows its flaws

[GMDino]

Another republican uses the "democratic talking point" about packing the senate...and throws in "the founding fathers" for good measure.

The Founding Fathers never intended for Washington D.C. to be a state.#DCStatehood is really about packing the Senate with Democrats in order to pass a left-wing agenda.

Just look at the DC voter registration data:
? 76.4% Democrat
? 5.7% Republican

— Senator Mike Rounds (@SenatorRounds) March 22, 2021

The same founding fathers that didn't want almost anyone to vote...lol.

[Belsnickel]

(03-23-2021, 09:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: Another republican uses the "democratic talking point" about packing the senate...and throws in "the founding fathers" for good measure.

The Founding Fathers never intended for Washington D.C. to be a state.#DCStatehood is really about packing the Senate with Democrats in order to pass a left-wing agenda.

Just look at the DC voter registration data:
? 76.4% Democrat
? 5.7% Republican

— Senator Mike Rounds (@SenatorRounds) March 22, 2021

The same founding fathers that didn't want almost anyone to vote...lol.

To me, the argument that making DC a state is all about the Democrats trying to seize power is negated by the Republicans arguing against it for that reason. What that indicates is that both parties have an agenda related to control of the body politic with regards to DC. The argument is one about civil rights and representation of the people. Whether you argue for or against statehood for DC based upon the political makeup of the city, you are on two sides of the same coin and have no moral high ground.

[GMDino]

Just when I think I've heard the dumbest thing there's something else....

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/fact-check-jody-hice-car-dealerships-dc-statehood/index.html

Quote:Arguing against statehood for DC, congressman says it has no car dealerships (it does)
[/url]
[url=https://www.cnn.com/profiles/daniel-dale]By Daniel Dale, CNN

Updated 10:23 PM ET, Mon March 22, 2021
















Sen. Paul Strauss explains where bill to make Washington DC a state stands 00:59

Washington (CNN)Rep. Jody Hice had an interesting Monday.


Hice, a Georgia Republican who has been in Congress since 2015, announced that he was running for Georgia secretary of state. He received the endorsement of former President Donald Trump.

Then Hice argued that the District of Columbia should not be a state, in part because it does not have a car dealership. Next, he apologized after being told that DC does have car dealerships -- though he explained that he still did not know where to find one.

Hice made his argument during a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing on a bill that would make the District of Columbia the 51st state. The district has a population of about 700,000 but does not have voting members of Congress -- only a delegate in the House of Representatives.

Hice, warning that DC gets some special funding from the federal government, said the country's founders wanted to avoid the district becoming "first among states." He continued: "DC would be the only state, the only state, without an airport, without a car dealership, without a capital city, without a landfill. ..."

Except DC does have car dealerships, as a Google search or visit to the DC Department of Motor Vehicles website -- or perhaps a leisurely drive around town -- would have shown.

Democratic Rep. Gerald Connolly of Virginia, denouncing the "absurdity" of arguments against statehood, later informed the committee that car dealerships do exist in DC. When it was Hice's turn to speak again, he said, "If there's a car dealership in DC, I apologize for being wrong -- I have no idea where it is."

It's dealerships plural, not a single dealership. But anyway, Hice appeared to be undeterred by his error. He reiterated the rest of his earlier list, warning that DC would become a state without a capital city, an airport or a landfill.

For the record: DC is less than an hour's drive from three major airports, one of which is connected to the subway system that serves DC and one of which is expected to be connected to the subway system next year.

We're going to ignore that car dealerships and airports did not exist when the Constitution was written.