Im assuming they don’t teach American civics in Canadian school systems, but federalism is why. If they cared so much about representation, the territory without federal offices could have been returned to Maryland and Virginia decades ago like Alexandria and Arlington were. It’s purely about adding two more Democratic Senators. They’re just butt-hurt that having a razor-thin majority in Congress isn’t as effective as they hoped it would be.
The Senate would be 100% on board if your Capitol city was Jacksonville, of that I have no doubt. But the forecast seems to “dark” to give the citizens of that D.C. (who out-populate the entire states of Wyoming and Vermont) a vote. And I agree with you, Washington SHOULD be a city in Virginia. It’s not like it isn’t already there.
I agree that it’s about adding two dem senators. But how is that any different than all the other blatant power grabs that the gop does or tries to do with things like the Supreme Court or voting laws? They’ve been changing their position on Supreme Court vacancies as it suits them since Obama was in office. Also, the balance of senatorial power to population is proper fucked.
It isn’t any better than what the GOP does. All of this nonsense could have been avoided if one old lady retired when she should have.
The full quote was: "I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Even if she DID retire when Obama was in office, Moscow Mitch would have just blocked her replacement for some bullshit reason, just like he did with Garland.
I thought DC was intentionally set up to not be a state, so that state power bias would not impact federal governance. If DC becomes a state, I worry that it just opens the door for more state creation. Let's have North and South Georgia. That would give 2 more senate seats to the GOP. Or, East and West Texas. And on and on.
If I understand the process correctly, those are two entirely different things. Creating a state where there is not one is much easier than modifying an existing state. State residents would have to vote to approve the modification. In the area of California where I live, we have the "State of Jefferson" nonsense. That will never happen though because it would never pass a state vote.
It’s not but it’d be nice if politicians pushing it would dispense with the pretense of some notion of fairness and just admit it’s a pure power grab. Politicians are literally in the business of building and maintaining their own power. Acting like they actually care is depressing at best. I lean conservative simply because they pretend to care about limited government even though the reality is the opposite.
Meanwhile in reality, you guys don’t actually need two Dakotas. ...or two senators for Wyoming. They need half a senator.
The Republican definition of power-grab is "anything that allows people to vote against Republicans."
Caitlin Jenner is running for governor. Her campaign motto is “I FUCKING KILLED A WOMAN AND GOT AWAY SCOT-FREE. VOTE FOR ME.”
And she's running as a Republican. Republicans would vote for a third term for Obama before they vote for a trans woman.
Republicans will bitch about a family in poverty getting $100 in foodstamps, but will piss away $50+ million on a complete stunt like a recall election.