• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Maxine Waters has flipped her wig

ImTheCaptain said:
i think GOP probably gains seats by scaring voters with the images of hordes of poi eating Hawaiians and Eskimos reducing the voting power of original 48 staters
Click to expand...

Edited to show how ridiculous it sounds.

So what is the argument that Americans in DC and PR shouldn’t have equal representation to someone in Wyoming or Montana?
 
lol ok

im not arguing they shouldn't. just that it's not a great idea for a platform.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
lol ok

im not arguing they shouldn't. just that it's not a great idea for a platform.
Click to expand...

I just have to disagree with you on that point. I'm not saying someone in a House district in Wisconsin or Ohio needs to put as their second platform bullet point: "Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico," but as a whole party platform, absolutely I think it is a great idea. For literally 50 years, Republicans have made Democrats argue fallacies such as "Dems are soft on crime," "Dems want to take your religion away," and many more things that aren't true. But the point isn't that they aren't true, it's that Democrats have to spend time, money, and air defending against an attack that isn't true.

Consider the following completely hypothetical situation:

Tight race in House District in Pennsylvania, late October. Republican nominee gets asked, "Do you believe that D.C. and Puerto Rico deserve statehood and full representation in Congress, and would you vote to approve their statehood as a member of the House?" Make the Republican either say yes, which is a win for Democrats in the long run, or make the Republican say no, at which point the messaging becomes really straightforward: "[Republican nominee's name] does not feel that citizens of D.C. and Puerto Rico deserve to have their voices heard and represented, why would he think yours do?" or something along those lines. Even if that question and that idea isn't incredibly impactful in that specific race, getting Republicans to take a position on the topic could add up over time and be beneficial to Democrats nationwide.

I guess my overall point here is I don't see how it hurts Democrats to offer it as part of the platform, but I really see how it could help them. You disagree and your opinion has as many merits as I think mine does.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
I just have to disagree with you on that point. I'm not saying someone in a House district in Wisconsin or Ohio needs to put as their second platform bullet point: "Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico," but as a whole party platform, absolutely I think it is a great idea. For literally 50 years, Republicans have made Democrats argue fallacies such as "Dems are soft on crime," "Dems want to take your religion away," and many more things that aren't true. But the point isn't that they aren't true, it's that Democrats have to spend time, money, and air defending against an attack that isn't true.

Consider the following completely hypothetical situation:

Tight race in House District in Pennsylvania, late October. Republican nominee gets asked, "Do you believe that D.C. and Puerto Rico deserve statehood and full representation in Congress, and would you vote to approve their statehood as a member of the House?" Make the Republican either say yes, which is a win for Democrats in the long run, or make the Republican say no, at which point the messaging becomes really straightforward: "[Republican nominee's name] does not feel that citizens of D.C. and Puerto Rico deserve to have their voices heard and represented, why would he think yours do?" or something along those lines. Even if that question and that idea isn't incredibly impactful in that specific race, getting Republicans to take a position on the topic could add up over time and be beneficial to Democrats nationwide.

I guess my overall point here is I don't see how it hurts Democrats to offer it as part of the platform, but I really see how it could help them. You disagree and your opinion has as many merits as I think mine does.
Click to expand...

it hurts by giving more ammo to GOTV for centrist republicans put off by beltway stereotypes and general threats to the norm. maybe i'm over concerned.

FWIW, PR has 3x the population of pointless incorporation of land, Rhode Island. DC is strange - they deserve representation but not a full two senators. that's incredibly dumb.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
it hurts by giving more ammo to GOTV for centrist republicans put off by beltway stereotypes and general threats to the norm. maybe i'm over concerned.

FWIW, PR has 3x the population of pointless incorporation of land, Rhode Island. DC is strange - they deserve representation but not a full two senators. that's incredibly dumb.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't D.C. deserve the full two senators? It has a higher population than both Wyoming and Vermont, less than 100,000 fewer than Alaska and North Dakota, and is the nation's capital. I find it hard to believe that thinking D.C. deserves full representation is dumb, let alone incredibly dumb.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
it hurts by giving more ammo to GOTV for centrist republicans put off by beltway stereotypes and general threats to the norm. maybe i'm over concerned.

FWIW, PR has 3x the population of pointless incorporation of land, Rhode Island. DC is strange - they deserve representation but not a full two senators. that's incredibly dumb.
Click to expand...

You're right on all these points.

And nothing is going to get out the Trump voter quicker than granting a bunch of Puerto Ricans statehood. "The Bronx is 25% Puerto Rican ! How's that going ?"

I take that back. Granting statehood to Chocolate City might mobilize them slightly faster.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Why doesn't D.C. deserve the full two senators? It has a higher population than both Wyoming and Vermont, less than 100,000 fewer than Alaska and North Dakota, and is the nation's capital. I find it hard to believe that thinking D.C. deserves full representation is dumb, let alone incredibly dumb.
Click to expand...

ok, then what's stopping LA, Chicago, NY and every major city requesting statehood on that argument
 
ImTheCaptain said:
ok, then what's stopping LA, Chicago, NY and every major city requesting statehood on that argument
Click to expand...

That's a straw man argument. I'm not advocating that cities with large populations request statehood. I'm saying that D.C., which is not part of any state and is a fully independent district, should at least consider requesting statehood, and that Democrats should advocate for that occurrence.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
That's a straw man argument. I'm not advocating that cities with large populations request statehood. I'm saying that D.C., which is not part of any state and is a fully independent district, should at least consider requesting statehood, and that Democrats should advocate for that occurrence.
Click to expand...

hm, no it isn't. you can't just waive it off because you don't like it. why shouldnt a mega city have it's own rep in the federal government? NYC is an economic powerhouse and it's denizens' intersts are vastly different from those in the wilderlands. Same for any state where the Big City dominates the politics of the state.

DC residents dont' have representation but just incorporate it with virginia or maryland, or split between the two states
 
Last edited:
ImTheCaptain said:
hm, no it isn't. you can't just waive it off because you don't like it.

they don't have representation but just incorporate it with virginia or maryland, or split between the two states
Click to expand...

My argument was that D.C. as an independent district (really, a U.S. territory) that is not part of an U.S. state and has its own government should request statehood. You countered by asking why all large cities don't request statehood, even though they are already part of U.S. states and therefore have full representation in Congress, which is a misrepresentation of my original argument, but one that is easier to win. Textbook straw man.

If there were an act of Congress to make D.C. part of Virginia or Maryland rather than an independent district, I'd be fully on board. The basis of my desire to see D.C. get statehood (other than obvious political gains) is that it's always bothered me that citizens of our nation's capital don't have a voice in Congress.
 
sure, i'm just saying that giving them statehood is the worst possible way to solve that problem.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
My argument was that D.C. as an independent district (really, a U.S. territory) that is not part of an U.S. state and has its own government should request statehood. You countered by asking why all large cities don't request statehood, even though they are already part of U.S. states and therefore have full representation in Congress, which is a misrepresentation of my original argument, but one that is easier to win. Textbook straw man.

If there were an act of Congress to make D.C. part of Virginia or Maryland rather than an independent district, I'd be fully on board. The basis of my desire to see D.C. get statehood (other than obvious political gains) is that it's always bothered me that citizens of our nation's capital don't have a voice in Congress.
Click to expand...

That’s fine with me too. I’d be fine absorbing PR into FL for that matter.

Not everything is about politics. Often it’s about basic rights and representation.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
hm, no it isn't. you can't just waive it off because you don't like it. why shouldnt a mega city have it's own rep in the federal government? NYC is an economic powerhouse and it's denizens' intersts are vastly different from those in the wilderlands. Same for any state where the Big City dominates the politics of the state.

DC residents dont' have representation but just incorporate it with virginia or maryland, or split between the two states
Click to expand...

Because all other mega cities are part of a sovereign state whereas DC is solely under the sovereignty of the federal government? It’s a pretty obvious distinction.

I’m all for redrawing the U.S. but that’s an entirely different discussion than whether to admit existing federal territories as States.
 
PhDeac said:
That’s fine with me too. I’d be fine absorbing PR into FL for that matter.

Not everything is about politics. Often it’s about basic rights and representation.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t. PR and DC are separate governments with separate histories, cultures, and traditions than neighboring states.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
If there were an act of Congress to make D.C. part of Virginia or Maryland rather than an independent district, I'd be fully on board. The basis of my desire to see D.C. get statehood (other than obvious political gains) is that it's always bothered me that citizens of our nation's capital don't have a voice in Congress.
Click to expand...

The citizens of our nation’s capital would rather go on without a voice in Congress than become part of VA or MD, thank you very much.
 
RChildress107 said:
The citizens of our nation’s capital would rather go on without a voice in Congress than become part of VA or MD, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

lol

I'm from Kansas, so I can't say I'm familiar with the pros and cons of being from either of those states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top