House Passes Bill To Make D.C. A State, Republicans Highly Oppose

[Gunny]

I completely agree this a political stunt by Dems. I also agree with the Constitution that states the Capitol should be neutral. Fact is, if statehood is granted there isn't a chance in Hell any Representatives or Senators will be Republicans. They don't call the beltway the "Ring around the COngo" for nothing.

Guess we're going to get another look at which GOP Senators are RINOs and turncoats.

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 4:10 PM PT — Saturday, June 27, 2020For the first time in history, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to grant Washington, D.C. statehood. The bill passed by a vote of 232-180. No Republicans supported the legislation and only one Democrat was against it.
A similar measure was proposed in 1978 and then again in 1993, both times failing. The bill resurfaced this year after President Trump overrode D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and deployed the National Guard to tame protesters.
Advocates for the bill claimed the district is worthy of statehood because it has more than 700,000 residents, which is more than the populations of both Wyoming and Vermont. Additionally, Washington, D.C.’s annual budget is larger than that of 12 other states.
Democrats have said they pushed the bill because they believe the residents of the nation’s capital have been subject to “taxation without representation.” The district does not have any official representation, but it does have a shadow senator who can do everything in Congress except vote.
“Congress has two choices: it can continue to exercise undemocratic, autocratic authority over the 705,000 American citizens who reside in our nation’s capital, or Congress can live up to its nation’s promise and ideals,” stated D.C. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
If the measure is passed based by the Senate, the area would get two voting senators and one House member.
Republicans have opposed this notion, which they viewed as a political stunt. According to them, those seats would most likely go to the Democrats, since the voters of D.C. have only ever elected Democrat mayors.
GOP lawmakers also cited the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8. This section called for the nation’s capital to remain a neutral bipartisan area for legislation, not be part of a state.
The new state would include the district’s residents, but not federal buildings, the National Mall, museums and memorials.
“What this bill does is it seeks to shrink the city of D.C. into a tiny city, then creates a state from the territory that is left over,” explained Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
The 23rd Amendment currently allocates three electoral votes to the District of Columbia. If shrunk down, it would give this small city extreme weight in the presidential election.


Overall, Republicans have argued D.C. statehood is not something the American people support.

“More than 2/3 of the American people oppose D.C. statehood, according to a Gallup poll last summer. By some estimates, D.C. statehood is less popular even than defunding the police. So why are the Democrats pushing for it?” – Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator (R-Ark.)The bill’s next stop is the Senate, which is Republican led and highly unlikely to consider it.
In the event it is approved by the upper chamber, the president has voiced his opposition and promised to veto the proposal.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=4

[icansayit]

Washington D.C. has Liberal Democrat Congress lady Holmes Norton as their rep.

The Dems want to make it a state to get TWO NEW Democrat Senators in the Senate.

No other reason. They always will have a MAJORITY in the Senate if they Violate the Constitution.

BUT we all know...Dems Do Not Care about the Constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They are attempting to create a new throne-- one they already hold power and ultimate sway in.
This is by any reasonable measure a threat against our Representative Republic.
Another power grab by the party that wants to destroy and reform this nation into the socialist paradise
they and their insane leftist/socialist/marxist allies think will be nirvana. Such utter idiocy that ignore reality
and the record showing that always failing political ideology brings about mass murder, enslavement and/or wars
along with utter destruction that takes the population directly into poverty, starvation and a sense of hopelessness.
Yet again, we see democrats showing their true America hating colors, and actually their treason, imho.
If this actually ever happens this nation is doomed... A solid gold fact.. --Tyr

[Gunny]

Just a little history. Y'all sound like Southern Democrats (they were the conservatives then) talking in 1859 about Lincoln being elected in 1860. The Republicans THEN were the progressive left.

The political history of the US (unabridged by the left version) from the 1820s to 1860 would surprise some at the many similarities then as now that ultimately led to the US Civil War.

[icansayit]

No need to wonder where BLM and ANTIFA got their idea to take down statues.

An ugly, dangerous man named ADOLF in the 1940's made sure his SS took down every statue that spoke of History in Every European nation he attacked and invaded.

Taking away the reminders of History are the tactics of Butcher's and Anarchist Tyrants.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLlHuxapK68

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No need to wonder where BLM and ANTIFA got their idea to take down statues.

An ugly, dangerous man named ADOLF in the 1940's made sure his SS took down every statue that spoke of History in Every European nation he attacked and invaded.

Taking away the reminders of History are the tactics of Butcher's and Anarchist Tyrants.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLlHuxapK68

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its tragic mistakes.
We now see how well these dem/leftist/anarchist / BLM groups understand that truth.
As they seek to erase history in order to rewrite the coming future to their insane ideology.-Tyr

[Black Diamond]

Just a little history. Y'all sound like Southern Democrats (they were the conservatives then) talking in 1859 about Lincoln being elected in 1860. The Republicans THEN were the progressive left.

The political history of the US (unabridged by the left version) from the 1820s to 1860 would surprise some at the many similarities then as now that ultimately led to the US Civil War.

Which things would surprise us?

[Gunny]

Which things would surprise us?This is going off memory. Too lazy to look it up but I know where to look and for what if need be.

So, for the purposes of argument, South/Red States are interchangeable, as is North/blue states. The demographics and political split are approximately the same. You can add industry v agriculture if you like.

Congress was split from the 1820s - thru the 1850s down the middle. Equal number of Slave states and free states. Now bear with me :) Control of Congress controlled tariff legislation. The South wanted no tariff while the North insisted on protectionist tariffs. Reason being the South made more and better money trading with Europe than the North because the North wasn't paying market price. The North needed the South. The SOuth did not need the North.

OTOH, The North wasn't going to pay European money so it legislated itself into the deal it wanted. The Tariff Act of 1828 was protectionist. The Tariff Act of 1832 was a typical "compromise" which satisfied neither side. SO the "battle" began as one for control and power of the US government. It is also notable that during the 1830s and 40s we had some really weak dudes as Presidents.

Each time a territory applied for statehood, the South threatened to secede and more bandaids were pasted over the gushing artery. Kansas-Nebraska Act, Missouri Compromise.

Meantime, back at the "MSM" ... Horace Greely was the editor in chief, owner, whatever of the NY rag. Probably the Times. Stench is the same. He IS the news. News back then outside the NE area is usually word of mouth and weeks or more late and went around about as accurately as it does now. He vilified the South at every chance, and naturally, slavery was a double bonus for him: One, the moral aspect he played on; and, two, it attacked the basis of the South's power. Add do-gooders like Harriet Beecher Stowe who didn't know jack shit about slavery writing Uncle Tom's Cabin, and people in the North had a completely distorted view of the South.

It all comes back to those seats in Congress. Abraham Lincoln was not going to allow any more slave states. The next free state admitted was going to give it whatever was needed to tip the balance of power in Congress to the North. Southern states, led by SC, said of Lincoln was elected they would secede. I haven't read anything about the validity of the 180 60 election, but Lincoln won.

SO many miles later, this DC as a state getting more seats we know are going to be blue just reminded of a book or two I've read :)

[Gunny]

In addition, if you need your somewhat comparable anarchy/political sideshows '''

There was the Dredd Scott case. The court determined that just because a slave owner took a slave into free states and back, it did not give the slave freedom. I'm sure some do-gooder. left-progressive, frothing at the mouth abolitionists foot the legal expenses. I can't imagine a slave, even one as "well-kept" as Dredd Scott having the means. Another media sideshow.

You had John Brown and his raid on the US Arsenal at Harper's Ferry, VA (now WV). This nutcase decided he was going to use the arms taken from the arsenal to arm slaves who would then rise up in revolt against who-the-Hell-ever (presumably slave owners). The US Army was called in under the Command of Col Robert E Lee to stop that nonsense. Another circus.

You had the border wars in Kansas and Missouri that were the sole ownership of the authors of the Kansas Nebraska Act and Missouri Compromise where free or slave would be left up to the voters. detractors on either side decided the best way to fix that vote was to kill the competition.

All of this was a constant, never-ending barrage from the progressive left who were determined to gain power regardless the means. There was not going to be any compromise. It was the progressive way or war.

On BOTH sides, what would eventually become an armed conflict was fueled by the big mouth, psycho's who were the ones making profit from conflict. The lives of the people who would eventually fight the war/be destroyed by it were of no concern to these idiots so long as they could push their political agendas, amass power and money, and in the case of the progressive left North, subjugate the South to its rule.

Caught in the middle? The political football known as the black. The notion that a bunch of white people decided to kill each other over whether or not blacks were slaves is ridiculous. If this was true, then WTF happened to this concern for blacks by the US/Northerners between 1865 and 1965? Blacks were "freed" and left where they stood, unemployed, uneducated, discriminated against and given as little as possible by the progressive left. Promises and some handouts to keep their vote and keep them quiet. The left has kept the black vote since with the same empty promises and meager handouts.

What is the right doing? Saying nothing. Then, they couldn't really defend slavery as morally correct. Now? Paralyzed in fear of being called racist while the progressives shove their agenda down the Nation's throats. When the South finally decided to act, it was left with one of two options, fight or submit, and it was too little too late. Now? The left is shy a couple of seats in the Senate, the Chief Justice RINO would rather piss off Trump than rule correctly. The left gets the Senate it can cancel Trump.

Unconstitutional edicts by Lincoln, Obama or Congress? All the same animal down here on the street.