i didn't ask you for a history lesson, i'm well aware of HOW this came to be. i asked you why it's a bad / unamerican thing to give every american representation - and the only actual point you were able to make, the only one that isn't some irrelevant historic tangent, seems to be that it would likely benefit the democrats electorally, at least short term. here's the thing though: partisan feelings are not exactly a good argument to withhold such an crucial thing from millions of people - i thought you people valued principles and justice so much? you know they still have to pay taxes, right?

i love how when you people don't have good arguments, be it statehood or electoral college for example, it's always "b-b-but the founding fathers... they had their reasons", acting like they were some kind of divine beings, like the constitution was set in stone, and like america hadn't significantly changed since then.

did you just have a stroke? the people of DC have a say in presidential elections, they have a represenative in the House (who should have full voting rights), but they dont have representation in the Senate - because the Senate is intended to represent states, not people. what is there not to understand about that?

also, let's not pretend like DC is some forgotten place without any political influence or power. by virtue of being the seat of the federal government and countless agencies, authorities and media, the reality is that national politics are more receptive to the opinions and leanings of DC residents than those of almost any other place in the country.

he does every day

in other news, “unity” by force imminent:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2021/01/07/a-truth-reckoning-why-were-holding-those-who-lied-for-trump-accountable/?sh=6def904c5710
https://archive.is/dwQGU



This post was edited by excellence on Jan 10 2021 05:03pm

you're moving the goalpost to avoid answering my question. i never suggested DC was a "forgotten place without ANY influence".

what i'm saying, and what you're avoiding to acknowledge, is that they are currently NOT adequately represented (something the UN human rights committee agrees on btw), and apart from your partisan concern that it would likely benefit democrats to give them full representation, you did not manage to make an argument as to why that is preferable to them having the same rights as their fellow americans.

pointing out that they are not a state might be technically correct, but it's completely irrelevant to the essence of my question, since the obvious, and already mentioned solution to remedy the situation is statehood, allowing for full representation. and again "the founding fathers had their reasons" is not an argument, except you name those reasons and explain why they make sense today, so much that it justifies withholding representation from those citizens.

"Not adequately represented according to the UN human rights committe" - do you mean the UN human rights council, which currently contains China and Russia, and contained Saudi Arabia from 2016 to 2019?

It's really simple: the way the American political system is set up, no citizen is entitled to proportional representation in the Senate. It's not just DC either - residents of California or Texas are also badly underrepresented in the Senate compared to those of Wyoming or Vermont.

If Republicans were offering to admit DC as a state if Democrats in return agree to let Oklahoma be split into two states, would you support this proposal? This way, the people of DC would get their RePrEsEnTaTiOn without shifting the balance of power in the Senate in Democrats' favor. Would you be interested in that? You pretend like you're holding the moral high ground on this issue, which is laughable. In reality, you dont give a flying fuck about the residents of DC or their democratic representation, you care about the two extra Senate seats for Democrats.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 10 2021 05:48pm

did you just have a stroke? i clearly wrote the UN human rights committee (which is an expert body) - not the UNHRC (which is a political body) - not that your implication there was a valid argument in the first place. still funny to see you fail so hard, lol.

you probably didn't even realise it, but in your lazy projection, trying to portray ME as a being motivated by partisanship (despite my frequent and vocal opposition to the democratic party, its leadership, its structure, the incoming president...), your counterquestion just outright confirmed that your ONLY argument against DC statehood is the electoral calculus - which, again, is not a good argument to withhold representation from people.

and just for the record, if there was a legitimate reason for oklahoma to split, one that resolved an issue of underrepresentation there for example, and if the people of oklahoma were in favour of a split into two states, i'd absolutely support that, no matter who it benefitted politically. looks like i DO have the moral highground indeed, not that it really matters to me. man, you really are like those people who opposed women's right to vote because it would 'disturb the order of things'.

This post was edited by fender on Jan 10 2021 06:15pm

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-ignoring-the-concerns-of-trump-supporters-will-destroy-america

an astute summary from someone biden would say “you aint black” to

Your whole line of reasoning comes down to a ludicrous reversal of the burden of proof: it is not me who first has to defend the status quo, it is the one who wants to change the status quo who first needs come up with a cogent argument for doing so. And you have failed to do that so far, the only argument you could produce is "the people of DC are not represented in the Senate" - which is not a valid argument since the Senate is explicitly not about representing people.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 10 2021 07:55pm

lol, i think you're confusing some things there with the burden of proof, buddy. it's like you pick up tiny little parts of discussions that sound smart, and certainly make a lot of sense in specific contexts, but you can't quite apply them properly yourself. no wonder you constantly fall for really dumb arguments wrapped in nice, big boy words...

my position that tax-paying american citizens should have the same rights to determine how they are governed (refer to the seventeenth amendment if you struggle to realise where the people's power comes into play, or just read an introductory article about the US senate, i'm not your civics teacher), regardless of where in the US they live, is a political stance - not some claim that requires or even allows for 'proof' of truth. i mean, can you seriously not see that? you really DID have a stroke, didn't you?

your only 'argument' against that is 'nuh uh, that would likely hurt republicans electorally, so it's bad', which, for the third time now, is a pretty shitty one, because it disregards political representation in favour of partisanship. i know, that's just par for the course for republicans (voter purges, polling station closures, extreme gerrymandering... voter suppression and disenfranchisement has long been their only way to remain even remotely competitive) - all i'm saying is that the opposition to DC statehood falls into the same category, and that attempts to portray it as something else have fallen laughably short: 'no YOU have to prove why giving people the same rights is a good thing'. holy fuck, dude...

Yep China. The country that still has muslim slaves and sells the organs of political prisoners.