Poll: Should Washington DC Become a State

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    To me that seems like something that campaign finance reform is way, waaaaaaay more likely to fix than term limits.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Sounds more an argument for campaign finance reform.
    Quote Originally Posted by matheney2k View Post
    I agree with this. Instead of letting money run wild and dictate a term, how bout we just do a reform of it all?
    Ok, you all think it's just campaign finance reform. Sounds great. Now what are your solution to campaign finance reform, and how likely do you think your solution is likely to happen in current political climate?
    Last edited by beanman12345; 2021-01-29 at 07:03 PM.

  2. #162
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by zEmini View Post
    Would DC have a Governor, Major and/or Commissioner at the same time?
    I think the Mayor/Governor set up would be the toughest item to coordinate. However, I would also be dollars to donuts that they already have a few solid options ready to go.

    The biggest issue is the faux constitutional one. D.C. would have to be divided so the Federal Seat of Government remains separate from the remaining people in D.C. And THAT is going to be a tough nut to crack.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I think the Mayor/Governor set up would be the toughest item to coordinate. However, I would also be dollars to donuts that they already have a few solid options ready to go.

    The biggest issue is the faux constitutional one. D.C. would have to be divided so the Federal Seat of Government remains separate from the remaining people in D.C. And THAT is going to be a tough nut to crack.
    Excpet that argument is a bullshit one, because DC has less federal land as a percentage than the rest of the United States, on average.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-01-29 at 07:31 PM.

  4. #164
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Excpet that argument is a bullshit one, because DC has less federal land as a percentage than the rest of the United States, as an average.
    First of all, wow - I did not know that at all. Second, not so much. 29% of D.C. is federal, while 28% of the United States is federal land.

    However, I still consider your position correct - not because of the numbers, but because I thought all of the District of Columbia was federal land. Which, when I bother to stop and think about it, doesn't make sense. So thank you for that info.

    Still, carving it up might be difficult - however, as always, I'm sure they have a plan in place. Or several options.

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    First of all, wow - I did not know that at all. Second, not so much. 29% of D.C. is federal, while 28% of the United States is federal land.

    However, I still consider your position correct - not because of the numbers, but because I thought all of the District of Columbia was federal land. Which, when I bother to stop and think about it, doesn't make sense. So thank you for that info.

    Still, carving it up might be difficult - however, as always, I'm sure they have a plan in place. Or several options.
    My apologies, I had DC at about 24% with the information I had. I'll try to go to my source. Clicking is hard.

    The plan really isn't difficult, don't carve it up. Other states have managed this for decades, with few major issues.

  6. #166
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    My apologies, I had DC at about 24% with the information I had. I'll try to go to my source. Clicking is hard.

    The plan really isn't difficult, don't carve it up. Other states have managed this for decades, with few major issues.
    And my info my be wrong, too. Suffice to say, I was surprised. Lol re clicking.

    How would it work then? Just cut it up according to the various Federal Government buildings and leave the rest to the New State?

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    And my info my be wrong, too. Suffice to say, I was surprised. Lol re clicking.

    How would it work then? Just cut it up according to the various Federal Government buildings and leave the rest to the New State?
    It would all be a part of the state, with federal land inside. California still has its borders, even though it has millions of acres of federal land, within. At worst, you'd need "easements" (which almost every other state does) for travel between them. The state would control most of the streets, businesses, and neighborhoods. The federal government would have jurisdiction over their property, as well as possible the Potomac (I have no idea how those laws work in other states).

  8. #168
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It would all be a part of the state, with federal land inside. California still has its borders, even though it has millions of acres of federal land, within. At worst, you'd need "easements" (which almost every other state does) for travel between them. The state would control most of the streets, businesses, and neighborhoods. The federal government would have jurisdiction over their property, as well as possible the Potomac (I have no idea how those laws work in other states).
    Oh for the fucking love of god, of course that's how they would do it. Because that's how every other friggin' state has done it. Thanks for being patient on that one with me, lol.

    Going to get more coffee.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    Ok, you all think it's just campaign finance reform. Sounds great. Now what are your solution to campaign finance reform,
    There are many steps and varying solutions. In no particular order:
    -Public financing of elections
    -Stricter limits on individual/corporate donations
    -Matching of small dontations, at 6:1 or higher ratio
    -Ban donations by non-individuals to candidates and party PACs
    -More transparency laws for all politically active groups/shed a light on dark money
    -repeal Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo
    -shorten election season so candidates have to raise less money
    -only permit fundraising during election season

    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    and how likely do you think your solution is likely to happen in current political climate?
    Given that the first bill the Democrats passed when they took the House in 2019 included some campaign finance reform...? More likely than term limits.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  10. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Agreed - great meme. Nice one @Egomaniac.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yep, agreed. I was speaking to only the security of our election, but obviously I could have been MUCH clearer.

    One issue with your #2, however, is that elections are run by the states, and changing that would be a constitutional move.
    And I'm in support of a constitutional amendment to change that, for Federal elections at least. Corresponding legislation can offer additional funding for election modernization for states that choose to adopt the new Federal guidelines at the state/local level as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  11. #171
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    And I'm in support of a constitutional amendment to change that, for Federal elections at least. Corresponding legislation can offer additional funding for election modernization for states that choose to adopt the new Federal guidelines at the state/local level as well.
    I would love to see something like that passed. Perhaps there is a solution that wouldn't involve a Constitutional Amendment - but merely legislation tied to funding (vis a vis the Commerce Clause). Something like Election Modernization Act, include the funding for states, but ONLY if they make the changes. And then tie it to other funding to make sure the States are "motivated" to get it done.

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I would love to see something like that passed. Perhaps there is a solution that wouldn't involve a Constitutional Amendment - but merely legislation tied to funding (vis a vis the Commerce Clause). Something like Election Modernization Act, include the funding for states, but ONLY if they make the changes. And then tie it to other funding to make sure the States are "motivated" to get it done.
    Yeah, that could work. IIRC the Interstate was built on legislation like that, where the states only got the Federal funding if they raised the drinking age to 21.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    There are many steps and varying solutions. In no particular order:
    -Public financing of elections
    -Stricter limits on individual/corporate donations
    -Matching of small dontations, at 6:1 or higher ratio
    -Ban donations by non-individuals to candidates and party PACs
    -More transparency laws for all politically active groups/shed a light on dark money
    -repeal Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo
    -shorten election season so candidates have to raise less money
    -only permit fundraising during election season



    Given that the first bill the Democrats passed when they took the House in 2019 included some campaign finance reform...? More likely than term limits.
    *some* campaign finance reform isn't going to stop phone banking with politicians being as bad as it is, and that's if said bills hold up in a 6-3 supreme court. Most of those steps, as said, is pie in the sky in todays current political climate. CU likely needs a constitutional amendment at this point, which yeah good luck. Im not disagreeing that getting to the root of the issue, would be ideal, but it's not happening in any form of a foreseeable future. Term limits aren't either tbf, i'm not argueing for them, but term limits is somewhat of a bandaid to the real problem.

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    *some* campaign finance reform isn't going to stop phone banking with politicians being as bad as it is, and that's if said bills hold up in a 6-3 supreme court. Most of those steps, as said, is pie in the sky in todays current political climate. CU likely needs a constitutional amendment at this point, which yeah good luck. Im not disagreeing that getting to the root of the issue, would be ideal, but it's not happening in any form of a foreseeable future. Term limits aren't either tbf, i'm not argueing for them, but term limits is somewhat of a bandaid to the real problem.
    There's more than one way to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

    It doesn't have to go through Congress (where it would die in committee because it would be directly bad, financially speaking, for those in office), it could be done at the grassroots level, passed through state assemblies (where the politicians take in FAR less in donations, and most have lucrative private sector jobs and state legislature jobs, simultaneously), and ratified that way. It would take longer, and would need extremely broad support among the general population to defeat the avalanche of opposition ad spending, but it is possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    There's more than one way to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

    It doesn't have to go through Congress (where it would die in committee because it would be directly bad, financially speaking, for those in office), it could be done at the grassroots level, passed through state assemblies (where the politicians take in FAR less in donations, and most have lucrative private sector jobs and state legislature jobs, simultaneously), and ratified that way. It would take longer, and would need extremely broad support among the general population to defeat the avalanche of opposition ad spending, but it is possible.
    38 states, we couldn't get 38 states to tell people to wear a damn mask, we ain't getting 38 states to pass any consitutional amendment.

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    but term limits is somewhat of a bandaid to the real problem.
    I don't think it is though. In the absence of any sort of reasonable campaign finance reform (and/or lobbying reforms), I think it could actually make it worse. You think the revolving door is bad now? Imagine if you had a limit of three terms: at any given point, you would have approximately 1/3 of Congress- and the most experienced ones at that- a) unable to be held to account by their voters, and b) actively looking for their next gig. The lobbyists and special interests would be acutely aware of this fact.

    I'm just trying to figure out how exactly term limits would stop politicians from phone banking for a quarter to a half of their time- because even if they personally don't need donations due to being term-limited, they are still going to be asked to phone for dollars for the party as a whole- especially since they will be the ones with the longest relationships with donors at that point.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    I don't think it is though. In the absence of any sort of reasonable campaign finance reform (and/or lobbying reforms), I think it could actually make it worse. You think the revolving door is bad now? Imagine if you had a limit of three terms: at any given point, you would have approximately 1/3 of Congress- and the most experienced ones at that- a) unable to be held to account by their voters, and b) actively looking for their next gig. The lobbyists and special interests would be acutely aware of this fact.

    I'm just trying to figure out how exactly term limits would stop politicians from phone banking for a quarter to a half of their time- because even if they personally don't need donations due to being term-limited, they are still going to be asked to phone for dollars for the party as a whole- especially since they will be the ones with the longest relationships with donors at that point.
    I provided the link. <shrug> i can't explain why it helps the phone banking problem better then them. It does cause other problems such as lack of experience as you bring up, that there is no doubt. Which is why I'm specifically not argueing for or against term limits, there is no easy answer.

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    38 states, we couldn't get 38 states to tell people to wear a damn mask, we ain't getting 38 states to pass any consitutional amendment.
    You could get 38 states behind campaign finance reform if you used the right rhetoric in the right places.

    "Stop corporate corruption" in blue states and "DRAIN THE SWAMP" in red states.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  19. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    You could get 38 states behind campaign finance reform if you used the right rhetoric in the right places.

    "Stop corporate corruption" in blue states and "DRAIN THE SWAMP" in red states.
    Sure getting 38 states to agree to a constitutional amendment is easy...that's why it's never been done before...

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by matheney2k View Post
    I'm not going to entertain the idea that if I am unable to solve a super-complex issue such as campaign finances and what a reformation of it could or would or even should look like that I can't comment on how fkd up the current system is. All I know is that money should not be the most important thing to a politician when the position itself is supposedly to represent the common man. Ya know, the guy without all the money.

    Is that really too much to ask for without submitting a 400 page essay first? Put limits on shit. Have caps. idk anything is welcome really.
    Im so damn confused by this response. I link an argument of people who want limits, you say that's not the answer, that the answer is campaign finance reform, so when I ask how that's done, you say put limits and anything would be welcome. I do agree with the later but confused why you argued the former. maybe a miscommunication on my end though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •