Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Chuck Schumer Argues For DC Statehood" video.

They are following the constitution. The bill would change the size of the district.
6
They aren't changing the constitution, they are shrinking the size of the district.
3
Neither DC nor MD want this to happen. They have been split for over 220 years, and you would have an easier time arguing that multiple states should have never existed and should be incorporated into existing states. DC has their own laws and their own beliefs, and they want statehood so they can represent themselves. MD doesn't want their politics drowned out by DC, and DC doesn't want to be ignored all over again. They have more than enough people, GDP and support for this to go through. The only reason not to is political agenda.
2
@andrewhopkins9844 They have been pushing to change this for 220 years. The local residents protested the establishment of the DC area the same year it was created.
2
@robertadams6606 The residents of DC were against the proposal from the start, and now there are over 700K people there they have been pushing for this for decades. The reasoning or timing behind it is irrelevant, it's the right thing to do regardless. I don't give a fuck about some agenda, DC voted overwhelmingly for statehood due to both their lack of representation at the federal level, and their reliance on the federal level to make all of their laws. Imagine the people of your state had zero say in who ran the state, but instead it was run by members elected by every other state in the country. Welcome to DC.
2
No it wouldn't. The area has already been reduced before. They are just making the actual district smaller, removing the residents from the area.
2
Neither the residents of DC of MD want that to happen. Why are you so against the people of DC voting for their own destiny and becoming a state?
2
@Ebbs-ez2fs "Frist, I of course want DC to have a voice in their own destiny, specifically in congress." "Having them be brought back into Maryland does the exact same as granting state-hood." These statements directly contradict each other. Neither DC or MD want this merge to happen. It's the opposite of them having their own say. "It also gives the citizens of D.C. a significantly better opportunity to thrive and succeed with the support and size (additional land and revenue sources) of the state of Maryland." DC has the highest median household income in the country and almost triple the GDP per capita of MD. What resources could MD ever offer DC? Statehood gives them rights to have more control over federal funds they are already given. Statehood also gives them rights to make their own laws, rather than relying on MD to make laws for them. "The District of Columbia is suffering more than almost every other major city in the US. And it is primarily because it is a city alone, with no land and no state to support it. And thus, there is not enough revenue being brought in for public programs." No, the problem is they have no control over how funds are spent. If they become part of MD they would just be sending dollars to the rest of the state rather than receiving anything. "However, having them brought back into Maryland (or VA if DC residents so choose), as it was originally apart of MA, will solve many economic and social issues they face" How? "also grants them representation in congress, which is the whole point the democrats claim to make here" Hardly. They have been separate for over 220 years. These areas are separate enough that you could far more easily claim that multiple states should absorb into neighbouring states because they don't deserve their own vote. "Its also a bonus that Maryland is heavily Blue, similarly to DC. So in a DC/MD merge, DC would get representatives in both congressional houses, immediately, who also share the same political ideology as a majority of DC residents." Yes and no. As stated they have a republican governor, and many MD ideas are not that close to DC. There are a whole host of laws that differ, and DC would end up a city-state anyway, so why not just give them what they actually voted for? "Having DC as a new state is ONLY a political partisan strategy to grab more power." No, it's what is most popular in both DC and MD. DC voted for statehood and MD frequently poll against absorbing DC. "They do not really care about disenfranchised voters." DC license plates literally say "Taxation Without Representation". What federal lawmakers decide and their reasons for doing so are irrelevant, because at the end of the day the local DC residents voted for this. I wouldn't call the will of the people a political power grab, when that is in fact what they voted for. Denying them statehood is the only power move here. "Many Politicians (Both Republicans and Democrats alike) think you and I are too dumb to realize this lol." Again, politicians can think what they like, but the people of DC have spoken. I don't give a fuck if they are being used as some sort of political crowbar to pry open the senate and house majorities a little wider. They deserve to have what they voted for, and arguing that politicians being conniving bastards as a reason for denying the vote of the people is a ridiculous claim. Stop trying to push solutions that have already been hashed over and voted against multiple times.
2
States don't want them as they will influence the elections in those states. Maryland for example has a Republican governor. You really this he wants a massive surge of Democrats joining the state?
1
@robertadams6606 They aren't changing the constitution though. Have you even read the bill? Also, you absolutely can change the constitution, we've done it a couple of dozen times already. Also, stating that the will of the people doesn't matter is some real dictatorial shit right there.
1
@robertadams6606 They aren't changing the Constitution, I already told you that. The Constitution sets aside a maximum area for the government to operate in. It does not however set a minimum area. They are shrinking the District of Columbia to just the capitol buildings, which is well within the law as it is written.
1
@robertadams6606 "The only reason Dems. want this is not for the people it's to control the Legislature." Irrelevant. The reasoning behind it really doesn't matter as DC already voted in favour of it with 85% of the vote. Federal motives really don't matter any more. "The will of the people can't change the CONSTITUTION." They aren't changing the constitution, I already explained that. "You're wrong about that it does specify exactly what the Dems are trying to change." I'm not, but that's fine, keep dreaming Robby.
1
@robertadams6606 "You are irrelevant. Nothing you said makes any of this possible." Doesn't change if it's right or wrong though does it. "You just don't know the truth about this issue." I just told you the truth. DC voted to become a state. MD doesn't want to absorb them. What more do you need to know? "You can't overturn the Constitution just because it doesn't suit you at the moment." They aren't. They are changing the size of the district to remove everything except the capitol buildings. The residents of DC will no longer be considered "the capitol" which will free them from the district and allow them to be a state. "Chuck is lying it will not become law." No, Chuck is stating the reason it should be a law, outlying that it could become law and stating what will happen if it does become law. "Dems seem to think that whenever they don't agree with something that some bill or vote will make it OK." That usually how you change laws yes. "The reason behind it doesn't matter because it won't get overturned." Of course it matters. Republicans denying the people of DC equal representation will always be important, no matter how many times they vote them down. "The DEMS ARE OUT TO DESTROY AMERICA" If by destroy American you mean giving people you disagree with representation at the federal level, then yes. It's very typical for Republicans to think that people being represented is a bad thing, hence the long string of popular vote defeats by the GOP/GQP. "I FOR ONE WILL NEVER AGREE TO THIS" Well you said it best, you are irrelevant. This is between DC, MD and congress, not you. I am stating an argument, but I don't expect people to agree. I came to logical conclusions, and you yelled and shouted. "you are being used by this issue" This issue of giving people equal representation at the federal level. Hard to be used by something I agree with. You on the other hand agree with representation, but are somehow warped into a twisted belief that people getting what they voted for is bad. I would expect nothing else from the GQP, your lot are used to getting something other than what they voted for by your dear leaders, but some of us are somewhat hopeful of a government that can make good choices. Besides, this movement is in the open now, and will come to fruition eventually. It's only a matter of time.
1
@robertadams6606 "I am but you are being misled about this issue." So DC didn't vote for statehood? "1 it's never a out what they say it's about." Doesn't matter, DC voted for it. "2 theres always an ulterior motive." Doesn't matter DC voted for it. "I Know what it's about, but you have no idea." Doesn't matter DC voted for it. "You just have talking points they tell you about." The one where DC voted for it? "This Administration has done everything it can to tear down this County & make it their own." Weird segue as we are currently discussing the will of the voters of DC. "NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. GET OVER IT!!!!." Well sure, when the GQP actively voted against the will of the people of DC, what do you expect. For a party that claims to hate federal control and loves state rule, they sure do love exerting their power over DC. "ITS WRONG." People getting what they voted for? So tell me, why do you hate DC voters getting what they asked for? Is it because you have ulterior motives and disagree with them politically?
1
@robertadams6606 They aren't changing the constitution, and voting against the rights of the people of DC is just voter suppression and undemocratic. We all know that's where the GQP stand on these issues though.
1
@frbe0101 Constitution has no minimum actually.
1
@frbe0101 "(not exceeding ten Miles square)" This by the way is 10 miles x 10 miles, which is 100 square miles as we would say these days. There is no minimum.
1
@frbe0101 It's not, that is the original interpretation. The area was not to exceed ten miles square. 10 miles square is (10 miles) ^2 = 10 miles * 10 miles = 100 square miles. As the original area took up 100 square miles as it was not to EXCEED this area, they were allowed to reduce the area by giving Virginia back the land that was originally annexed from them. There is however no minimum on this area, as 1 square mile does not exceed 10 miles square. The stipulation is also more specific than saying 100 square miles, as it means none of the sides of this area can stretch further than 10 miles. This would not be true if the stipulation were 100 square miles.
1
Oh, so your family fought against the British because they were taxed without governmental representation. Can you imagine such a heinous situation these days.....
1
@eq1373 Maryland doesn't want them. Why are you against the will of the people of DC? Why are you anti-democracy?
1
@whatareyoulookingat908 The irony. The senate is anything if democratic. Saying that while going against the actual democracy of the people of DC is even richer.
1