“State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth”: House Democrats Set To Approve D.C. As The 51st State

The House Democrats, with the support of President Joe Biden, are set to vote to approve the establishment of the “State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” as our 51st state today. I had testified and written about D.C. statehood for decades and, as noted in a recent column, I believe that the best interests of both the country and the district residents is found in retrocession, not statehood.

As noted earlier, there has been comparatively little debate of the bill in the House, where perfunctory hearings rushed it to the floor. What was missing by design in the House was any acknowledgment, let alone consideration, of alternatives to creating the first Vatican-like city-state in the country. Most importantly, there was no discussion of what district citizens could gain from an alternative to statehood — retrocession.

The tragedy is that we have never had a full and honest debate of the options for securing full representational rights for district residents. There is little interest in having such a national discussion or submitting this question to the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment. Polls show a majority of Americans still oppose D.C. statehood as they have for decades despite both well-funded campaigns and overwhelming support in the media.  There has always however been a pathway to full representational status through retrocession. However, the Democratic leadership again cut off consideration of that and other options in another “take or leave it” legislative construct. There are also opposing views on whether a constitutional amendment is warranted and, of course, the preference of some to continue the original intent of the Framers in the creating of “federal city” that is not controlled by any state.

The bill is not likely to succeed in the Senate and we will lose another year without a full and civil discussion of these options. Instead, it will fail and deepen our divisions while supporting calls for killing the filibuster rule.  The politics remains the same as does the status of the district.

220 thoughts on ““State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth”: House Democrats Set To Approve D.C. As The 51st State”

  1. The left is only interested in power and money. They have no desire for a Constitutional republic or the citizens. They only concern themselves with the elites..

    1. S.Meyer – Have you ever considered fact-based discussions – or is that too hard for the uninformed right?

      1. Bill, I am glad you brought that up. Fact -based discussions are the way to go. I wonder why no one ever thought of that before. There are plenty of facts out there. Where would you like to start?

        Let me point out one thing. The left in the 20th century graciously provided the deaths of over 100 million people outside of war. If we start from historical fact perhaps we can avoid making the same mistakes.

  2. If the Dems succeed in making DC a state, here’s what the Repubs should do once they regain power: Split Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Ohio, each, into two separate states. With, of course, the right number of R’s in each new state. Do so on the grounds that 55 is a nice number.

    And for the Supreme Court non-packing packing, do the same.

    1. Republicans are welcome to try.

      After all, they already did something analogous with the Dakota territory: split it in two prior to applying for ND and SD statehood, in order to increase their representation in Congress.

    2. “what the Repubs should do once they regain power”

      Democrats are intent on making sure this never occurs by means of eliminating signature verification on ballots, open borders, new states, packing the court, eliminating the filibuster, etc.

      1. spthspth, thank you for correcting the record. This Anonymous knows all that, but he’ll never admit it.

      2. That’s the idea. Single party rule. Took Hitler From January 30, 1933 until July 14, 1933. The Dems are working overtime and will beat that record. All that’s needed is to outright ban other parties and they are capable of doing so. The majority of Americans are against most of what they are cramming through. Like the German populace, they remain silent except for hashtags, social media, and comment sections.

  3. “as noted in a recent column, I believe that the best interests of both the country and the district residents is found in retrocession, not statehood.”

    Yep, and in every single one of your discussions, you ignore the legal issue that the land cannot be retroceded unless the state of Maryland agrees to take it back, which they are not interested in.

    You don’t care about Maryland’s legal rights in the matter. If you did, you’d discuss them.

    1. Actually has has not. Professor Turley discussed why Maryland would not want back their part of D.C. back. His point however is that the Democrats are only discussing one option and rushing that option. Why cannot the Democrats discuss other options? Why only one option, their preferred choice, which may not be a particularly good choice for the citizens of D.C.? Why create a state when it does not need to be done? There is some kind of an act going on like the citizens of D.C. have been robbed of their rights. They originally chose to stay as they were when they had the choice. The Virginia side of the city chose to return.

      1. “Professor Turley discussed why Maryland would not want back their part of D.C. back.”

        But he was entirely silent about the legal fact that it CANNOT occur unless the Maryland legislature agrees to it.

        “His point however is that the Democrats are only discussing one option…”

        Nonsense. You think retrocession hasn’t been discussed? Just Google washington dc maryland retrocession to see some of the many discussions of it, including by members of Congress.

        “Democrats are … rushing that option. ”

        More nonsense. Learn thelong history of these discussions –
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_the_District_of_Columbia#Early_discussions_of_voting_rights

        “Why cannot the Democrats discuss other options?”

        Why do you ask loaded questions? They can and HAVE discussed them.

    2. “You don’t care about Maryland’s legal rights in the matter. If you did, you’d discuss them.”
      **********************************************
      Yeah, nobody wants more land who residents, infrastructure and government are totalled subsidized by the federales and whom the recipient can now tax.

      Dumb, de dumb, dumb

      1. “Dumb, de dumb, dumb” describes your comment, which doesn’t address Maryland’s legal rights in the matter any more than Turley has.

        1. I agree about Maryland. The real solution is to kick DC, NYC, LA, and Chicago out of the Union, build a wall around them, and tariff the hell out of their commerce. Then they can have whatever dictators they want! I think that would be a much better solution than retrocession.

      2. I’ve lived in Maryland for 15 years. We’ve never been allowed to vote on the question. Our elected representatives have never asked for our input. They are placing the interests of their party (Democrat) over the interests of their constituents. I want the land back. MD is a very small state and we would benefit from getting our property back.

        1. “Our elected representatives have never asked for our input.”

          You don’t need them to ask you in order to express your opinions to your elected representatives. Just call their offices or use their online forms.

          1. “Just call their offices or use their online forms.”

            Their offices are manned by leftwing goons. Good luck with that.

            1. I’ve never spoken to a “goon” of any sort when I’ve called my state or federal representatives.

              If your representatives’ offices are staffed by goons, you have my condolences.

              1. “I’ve never spoken to a “goon” of any sort when I’ve called my state or federal representatives.”

                ATS, Maybe a goon doesn’t know a goon when he talks to one.

                  1. No , no, Anonymous the Stupid, I said Maybe a goon doesn’t know a goon when he talks to one. That means as a goon you wouldn’t know when you are talking to one. Our friend got it and you didn’t. Do you know why? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.

                    Another +100 for Diogenes.

  4. What is the rush? Where is the debate? I am sure the Democrats know this will fail, so why bother other than to score political points that do not exist outside of D.C.

    I understand the Democrats are both frustrated and angry. I also understand they think this will solve a major problem for them. However, what is best for the citizenry of D.C.? They will not be able to stand on their own when Federal dollars are shifted from them as they now have to compete. I can certainly see this blowing up in the Democrats face after a period when those that would hand two Senate seats to them become angry when it does not go according to plan.

    History teaches what happens when there is a rush to judgement. Just ask Harry Reed and his moves on confirming Judges. It not the Democrats badly.

    I can only hope the Senate shows more restraint than their House counterparts.

    1. When will the New Party of Stupid learn anything?

      The Left has the White House, Congress, Media, Big Tech, Education, IC, FBI, DOJ, Education, and they’re working on the military. They’ve demoralized generations of Americans. Yes, from a constitutional conservative view, what they’ve done and are doing is stupid and not sustainable. However, they’re Leftists, hostile to our constitution and our Judeo-Christian conservative values. They’re not stupid. They’re domestic enemies, hiding in plain sight, with the support of millions of truly ignorant people.

      1. So what will happen? Is there a majority of Americans who share their views? I think not. So are they just rolling over and accepting this? Sure seems that way. We have no leader in the opposition, so they will win. Biden won’t be just the worst president United States has ever had, he will be the last. And the Chinese are lapping it all up.

        1. Suze,
          This article I received today basically agrees with your assessment. It cites Reagan: It was during Ronald Reagan’s time as governor of California, after all, that he told student protestors he would sell his bonds if they were — as they claimed to be — the future. The author brings up two conclusions for conservatives:

          The first conclusion is an obvious one: A college education is a not-so-golden ticket to a worldview that embraces the premises of the Left. This may be a seemingly self-evident truth to conservatives, but there are those who deny it. This poll makes it obvious that time spent on a campus — being governed by progressive administrators, being taught by progressive faculty, and most important, living amongst progressive peers — tends to turn you into a much more progressive person. Conservatives are quick to complain about this phenomenon, but it’s very possible that we underestimate its consequences.

          The second conclusion naturally follows from the first: Conservatives are not doing enough to persuade young people. Part of this can be attributed to a complacency borne out of the belief that as a matter of course, foolish young liberals will transform into wise old conservatives.

          Wrong.

          Millennials show no sign of growing more conservative over time like the Boomers did, and there’s little evidence to suggest Generation Z will revert back to the mean. There’s nothing inevitable about generational ideological shifts — they must be earned, not counted upon.
          https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/a-wake-up-call-for-conservatives/?utm_source=Intercollegiate+Studies+Institute+Subscribers&utm_campaign=86353ca4c3-Intercollegiate-Review-4-22-2021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3ab42370fb-86353ca4c3-93293141&goal=0_3ab42370fb-86353ca4c3-93293141

  5. You choose to live in a District that does not have voting representation in Congress. Then you complain about the fact that you live in a District that does not have voting representation in Congress. If that’s so important to you, then live elsewhere.

    That attitude is the Meghan Markle school of victimhood: Make a choice. Then go on Oprah to whine that you’re a victim. And smear others to distract attention from the bad consequences of your own choices.

    1. “If that’s so important to you, then live elsewhere.”

      Or petition Congress to make DC a state, which is entirely legal.

      You object to this legal action. OK, but don’t pretend that it’s not just as legitimate a choice as what you prefer.

    2. This is analogous to people who buy a home near the flight path of a major airport and then start a campaign complaining about the noise.

      1. Noise from airports is in the Constitution?

        The Founders argued “airports have noise” like they argued “no taxation without representation”?

  6. It is downright spooky that the filibuster is the only thing holding the country together at the moment. We all need to stop being intimidated by implied racism, it’s the last tool in the box for a clearly desperate party who are in fact the ones that haven’t evolved. Ramming as much legislation as possible through the pipes in a year is not the behavior of confidence.

    1. Actually, DC is a fairly well run city. Mayors since Marion Berry was kicked out of office have improved the city’s services.

  7. “cultish totalitarian hive minded political left“

    That has a nice ring to it! Came up with that yourself, did ya? You are quite the wordsmith. Tell me, what’s your catch phrase for the political right?

    1. Jeff Silberman wrote, “That has a nice ring to it! Came up with that yourself, did ya? You are quite the wordsmith.”

      Another ad hominem deflection. I think Jeff got offended.

      Get over yourself Jeff.

      Jeff Silberman wrote, “Tell me, what’s your catch phrase for the political right?”

      Liberty minded Constitutionalists.

      Any questions?

      1. “Jeff Silberman wrote, “Tell me, what’s your catch phrase for the political right?” Liberty minded Constitutionalists.”

        Steve, you’ve got your head in the sand if you think those on the right are Liberty minded Constitutionalists.

        1. I’d like everyone to notice that Anonymous did not post an argument countering my catch phrase for the political left which was “cultish totalitarian hive minded political left” (it must have hit very close to home) instead Anonymous posted an ad hominem targeting me for my catch phrase of the political right. This folks is what true signature significance looks like in a nutshell.

          Anonymous wrote, “Steve, you’ve got your head in the sand if you think those on the right are Liberty minded Constitutionalists.”

          Really Anonymous?

          Let’s all watch as you feebly try to support that ignorant statement with fact based reality that shows a huge cross section of the political right are not Liberty minded Constitutionalists. We’ll all hold our breath while we wait.

          Here’s some definitions to help Anonymous achieve this…
          ———————————————–
          LIBERTY
          The state of being free within society from
          oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on
          one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

          The quality or state of being free.

          The power to do as one pleases.

          Freedom from physical restraint.

          Freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.

          The positive enjoyment of various social, political,
          or economic rights and privileges.

          The power of choice.

          Freedom from control, interference, obligation,
          restriction, hampering conditions, etc.;
          power or right of doing, thinking,
          speaking, etc., according to choice.

          The freedom to live as you wish or go where you want.
          ———————————————–
          CONSTITUTIONALIST
          An adherent or advocate of constitutionalism or of an existing constitution.

          Adherence to or government according to constitutional principles.
          ———————————————–

          Personally, I think Anonymous has shown everyone around Turley’s blog that “he” is in fact the one with “his” head buried deep in the sand.

          I await some kind of out-of-character intelligent response from Anonymous.

          1. “Anonymous posted an ad hominem targeting me for my catch phrase of the political right.”

            No, actually, I didn’t. I made a conditional statement about your beliefs, not about you as a person. If you’re going to complain about ad hominem arguments, develop a more accurate understanding of what they are and aren’t.

            As for “Let’s all watch as you feebly try to support that ignorant statement with fact based reality that shows a huge cross section of the political right are not Liberty minded Constitutionalists” –

            The right is a diverse group, as is the left. Both sides (and those in the middle) are “Liberty minded Constitutionalists” at times and not at other times. Take the abortion debate, for example. Those on the right do not advocate that the pregnant woman have the liberty to have an abortion. They do not value the constitutional right of privacy in this context. Or consider the rightwing domestic terrorists, who are more common in the US (per the FBI) than leftwing domestic terrorists. Domestic terrorists aren’t “Liberty minded Constitutionalists.” There are lots of examples of this sort.

            BTW, I hope you also understand that many people post anonymously here. For the subset that come from me, that you disagree with my opinions does not make my comments unintelligent. They are generally fact-based, fallacy-free, and often substantiated with evidence.

            1. Anonymous wrote, “No, actually, I didn’t. I made a conditional statement about your beliefs, not about you as a person.”

              LIAR!

              These statements “That has a nice ring to it! Came up with that yourself, did ya? You are quite the wordsmith.” were sarcastic ad hominems aimed directly at me the person NOT a retort of my argument. You’re a fool for trying to contradict that truthful assessment.

              1. Oops I shared the wrong quote, it should have been “Steve, you’ve got your head in the sand…” Which was directly at me personally.

                You don’t like my assessment that’s fine; however, your pompous statement that I should learn what an ad hominem is is ludicrous.

                1. “Which was directly at me personally.”

                  Yes, it was directed at you personally about your beliefs AND it was a conditional claim, both things you omitted by cutting off the quote where you did. Here it is again: “Steve, you’ve got your head in the sand IF you think those on the right are Liberty minded Constitutionalists.”

                  It is not ad hominem to address someone’s thoughts/beliefs, as those are part of the person’s argument.

                  Again, understand what an ad hominem fallacy is and isn’t.

                  “Ad Hominem
                  “Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself.” (https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem)

                  I wasn’t doing that. The issue of whether those on the right are Liberty minded Constitutionalists is central to the argument.

                  “The political left is a hive mind, veer from the point of view of the hive and you’re smeared as a righty.”

                  That’s your opinion. It’s not a fact. It’s my opinion that people on the left have as diverse opinions as people on the right.

                  “You are misrepresenting the argument from the anti-Abortion advocates, they are specifically stating that the woman does not have the right to kill a unborn human being. I don’t have the right to kill you and you don’t have the right to kill me and a woman does not have the right to kill an unborn human being.”

                  You and I don’t have the right to kill each other because we are legal persons. An embryo is not a legal person. You can claim that those on right are Constitutionalists, but look at what the Constitution says about it (quoting SCOTUS):

                  The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

                  The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to “person.” The first, in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. “Person” is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

                  All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

                  I’ll point out that people with a beating heart after brain death are still living human beings (their bodies are alive), but they are dead as legal persons, as brain death is legal death for persons. This is part of what many on the right attempt to do in their arguments about abortion: conflate personhood (a legal status) and “human being” (not a legal status).

                  You think I’m “misrepresenting the argument from the anti-Abortion advocates,” and I think you’re misrepresenting the legal issue. Are you ready to have a real legal discussion of whether the right supports the Constitution when it comes to abortion?

                  1. Anonymous wrote, “Yes, it was directed at you personally about your beliefs AND it was a conditional claim, both things you omitted by cutting off the quote where you did. Here it is again: “Steve, you’ve got your head in the sand IF you think those on the right are Liberty minded Constitutionalists.” “

                    Awww, that’s cute; Anonymous actually thinks that his qualifier makes a difference. That’s a complete fallacy but it’s cute. What a foolish, foolish thing for Anonymous to try.

                    It is 100% fact and I stated it as such that I personally believe that the political right are Liberty minded Constitutionalists and I do mean the vast majority and predominate cross section of the political right; therefore, your argument was a personal attack because of my beliefs and not about the argument itself, that sir IS and ad hominem. You don’t have to agree with my argument but your head buried in the sand is a personal attack and not an attack on the argument, you didn’t offer any rebuttal to the argument at all in your ad hominem, all we had to go on was “Steve, you’ve got your head in the sand IF you think those on the right are Liberty minded Constitutionalists.”. Get over yourself Anonymous, your comment was an ad hominem and none of your justifications is going to change that fact, period. End of argument. Move on.

                    Anonymous wrote, “An embryo is not a legal person.” and “I think you’re misrepresenting the legal issue.”

                    I didn’t say a “legal person” I wrote “human being”. I’m not talking about the legal issue, I put forth the moral issue.

                    Your argument is the same morality dodge that pro-abortion activists use all the time. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is moral or right, it’s a fallacy to think otherwise. Abortion may be “legal” but it’s IMMORAL to kill another human being! Period!

                    The end result of pro-life is literally life.

                    The end result of pro-choice is literally death.

                    “Abortion is literally choosing to end the life of a human being when it is most vulnerable and unprotected by law. What is happening to these lives via abortion might currently be legal but it is clearly immoral and it will always be immoral regardless of rationalizations regarding legality!”

                    WHEN IS “ABORTION” NOT IMMORAL?

                    Anonymous wrote, “You think I’m “misrepresenting the argument from the anti-Abortion advocates”

                    You are literally misrepresenting the argument of anti-abortion activists, there arguments are ALL about the morality of abortion and saving the life of the unborn human being NOT about the rights of the mother.

                    I’ve got to go deal with actual live in the real word now, I might catch you later.

                    1. “I didn’t say a “legal person” I wrote “human being”. I’m not talking about the legal issue, I put forth the moral issue.”

                      I know that you said “human being.” You also said that your catch phrase for the political right is ”Liberty minded Constitutionalists,” and that’s what we’re discussing. Constitutionality IS a legal issue. Whether abortion should be legal and under what circumstances IS a legal issue.

                      So discuss the legal/constitutional issues, which center on the fact that an embryo is NOT a person, and a pregnant woman IS a person, and both the woman and the government have rights, but the embryo does not.

                      Are you willing to discuss the constitutional issues or aren’t you?

                      “pro-abortion activists”

                      I’m not “pro-abortion.” Fine by me if no one chooses to have one. I’m pro-choice: the choice is for the pregnant woman to make prior to viability.

                      “it’s IMMORAL to kill another human being! Period!”

                      That’s your opinion. It is not a fact. People’s opinions about when it’s moral to kill a living organism (whether human or not) clearly differ and often vary with circumstances (e.g., someone might be against abortion in general but believe it’s a moral choice if the woman was raped or if her health is endangered; people may be against the death penalty but believe that it’s acceptable to kill in self-defense).

                      Back to the point: you claimed people on the right are ”Liberty minded Constitutionalists,” and either you’re willing to discuss the constitutional issues or you aren’t.

                      “The end result of pro-life is literally life. The end result of pro-choice is literally death.”

                      Lots of women who are pro-choice choose not to have an abortion. My mom is an example. Fine with me if she’d chosen to abort me. Not like I’d know. And of course women still die from pregnancy-related complications, so claiming “The end result of pro-life is literally life” ignores the actual complexities.

                      More importantly, “life” is not “personhood.” Deal with the constitutional issues or admit that you cannot defend your claim that those on the right are ”Liberty minded Constitutionalists.”

                      “WHEN IS “ABORTION” NOT IMMORAL?”

                      I think it’s not immoral prior to viability, and I think it’s not immoral after the normal date of viability if the fetus will never become viable (as with fetuses that are completely anencephalic), or if the woman’s life or health are seriously endangered, or if it’s a multiple pregnancy where one fetus is killing another. People’s views of when it’s moral clearly vary.\

                      “You are literally misrepresenting the argument of anti-abortion activists, there arguments are ALL about the morality of abortion and saving the life of the unborn human being NOT about the rights of the mother.”

                      But that is NOT a constitutional argument. It undermines your claim that those on the right are ”Liberty minded Constitutionalists,” as it shows that they are not Constitutionalists when the Constitution is contrary to their moral beliefs.

                  2. If brain death (defined as lack of all brain function) means the end of personhood, then the onset of brain function (about the sixth week of pregnancy -when fetus begins some bodily movements & all bodily movement is controlled by the brain) is the beginning of personhood. Therefore, by your standard of personhood being the legal standard, ANY abortion after the sixth week would be murder.

                    1. “If brain death (defined as lack of all brain function) means the end of personhood, then the onset of brain function (about the sixth week of pregnancy -when fetus begins some bodily movements & all bodily movement is controlled by the brain) is the beginning of personhood.”

                      It’s an embryo at 6 weeks, not a fetus.

                      The brain doesn’t control all bodily movement; involuntary muscle spasms, for example, are not controlled by the brain, and some kinds of movement are possible even after brain death. Some movement also begins prior to the prenatal development of brain control.

                      Legally, the onset of brainstem function is not the beginning of personhood. Legally, birth is the beginning of personhood. You can certainly argue that you think that the onset of brainstem function should be the beginning of personhood, but you cannot correctly argue that it is the beginning of personhood. It isn’t.

                      “by your standard of personhood being the legal standard, ANY abortion after the sixth week would be murder.”

                      No, even by your standard (not mine) that the beginning of the most basic brain activity constitutes personhood, some embryos and fetuses never develop that brain activity. A totally anencephalic fetus, for example, may not even have a brain stem.

                      I agree that brain activity is important. That’s why we consider conjoined twins to be two people, even though they’re a single organism. But it’s not the only consideration. FWIW, the kind of brain activity associated with consciousness doesn’t develop until ~25-26 weeks into pregnancy.

            2. Anonymous wrote, “BTW, I hope you also understand that many people post anonymously here. For the subset that come from me, that you disagree with my opinions does not make my comments unintelligent. They are generally fact-based, fallacy-free, and often substantiated with evidence.”

              Sorry to bust your bubble Anonymous but this sentence “you’ve got your head in the sand if you think those on the right are Liberty minded Constitutionalists” does not fall within your “generally fact-based, fallacy-free, and often substantiated with evidence” claim. In fact your sentence was not fact based, it’s actually a fallacy and you did not substantiate it with evidence.

              You’ve been busted.

              1. “In fact your sentence was not fact based, it’s actually a fallacy and you did not substantiate it with evidence.”

                Learn the difference between opinions and facts. I was expressing an opinion in that sentence. Upon your request, I’ve now presented some factual evidence (e.g., a quote from the Supreme Court about relevant parts of the Constitution) to back up my opinion.

                It was not a fallacy. You’ve falsely claimed that it is, and I’ve given you evidence contrary to your claim.

                “You’ve been busted.”

                No, you mistakenly think, but your argument has errors in it, as I just explained.

            3. Anonymous wrote, “The right is a diverse group, as is the left.”

              That used to be true 20+ years ago but it’s far from fact today. The political left is a hive mind, veer from the point of view of the hive and you’re smeared as a righty.

            4. “BTW, I hope you also understand that many people post anonymously here. For the subset that come from me, that you disagree with my opinions does not make my comments unintelligent. They are generally fact-based, fallacy-free, and often substantiated with evidence.”

              Here we hear the excuse that many people post anonymously. They do so willingly.

              ” make my comments unintelligent. “

              Yes they do because you are anonymous and thereby take credit for anything that can logically be assumed to be unintelligent.

              ” generally fact-based, fallacy-free, “

              That is what you would like to think, but it is not true as evidenced by your sum total of posts.

            5. Anonymous wrote, “Both sides (and those in the middle) are “Liberty minded Constitutionalists” at times and not at other times.”

              Hogwash. The political left is anti-Liberty and anti- Constitution for anyone that disagrees with them.

            6. Anonymous wrote, “Those on the right do not advocate that the pregnant woman have the liberty to have an abortion. They do not value the constitutional right of privacy in this context.”

              You are misrepresenting the argument from the anti-Abortion advocates, they are specifically stating that the woman does not have the right to kill a unborn human being. I don’t have the right to kill you and you don’t have the right to kill me and a woman does not have the right to kill an unborn human being.

            7. Anonymous wrote, “Or consider the rightwing domestic terrorists, who are more common in the US (per the FBI) than leftwing domestic terrorists.”

              Terrorist: a person or group that uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

              Please identify these right wing “terrorist” groups. There were a couple of these small righty and mouthy groups involved in the DC Capitol riot but if I use the left’s mantra about the left’s riots across the USA, the DC Capitol riot was mostly peaceful.

              The problem with this “domestic terrorist” labeling is that the label is not being applied equally because there are clearly domestic terrorist groups that are not being labeled as such and they most definitely should be; ANTIFA, BLM, Freedom Inc., Urban Triage and Democratic Socialists of America (have become co-terrorists with ANTIFA and BLM over the last few years) are four groups that I can name off the top of my head.

              The problem with the terrorist label these days is the political left is using that term just like they use fascists and racist, thy use it as false accusations to shut down discussion and falsely demonize opposition, it’s pure propaganda.

              Anonymous wrote, “Domestic terrorists aren’t “Liberty minded Constitutionalists.” “

              Actual terrorists (as defined) are not Liberty minded Constitutionalists, I completely agree.

              In the 21st century, the ideological views of the predominate political left have become anti-Liberty, anti-Constitution, anti-American and the ideological views of the left’s hive mind has a mindset of Liberty for me but not for thee; therefore, the ideology driving the political left has become an enemy to the United States of America. It’s the brainwashed cultish totalitarian ideology that’s the real problem, the people can eventually be deprogrammed.

              Anonymous wrote, “There are lots of examples of this sort.”

              Provide the examples of groups in the political right that fit within the “terrorist” label; a group that uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

              Remember; Liberty for me but not for thee is how liberty dies.

              1. I submitted a reply earlier, but it looks like it never posted. So here’s another version.

                “Please identify these right wing “terrorist” groups.”

                I didn’t limit my claim to people acting in groups. Some are groups, like some of the Proud Boys (recently indicted) and neo-Nazi groups, and some are individuals (you want individual names, like McVeigh and Sayoc?).

                2019 testimony before Congress: “Among domestic terrorists, violent far-right terrorists8 are by far the most numerous, lethal and criminally active. Over the last several decades, they are responsible for more: failed plots; successful plots; pursuits of chemical or biological weapons; homicide events; and illicit financial schemes than international terrorists, including HVEs.”
                Footnote 8: “START’s Global Terrorism Database defines “far-right extremism” as “Violence in support of the belief that personal and/or national way of life is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent. Characterized by anti-globalism, racial or ethnicsupremacy or nationalism, suspicion of centralized federal authority, reverence for individual liberty, and/or belief in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.””
                https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Braniff-2019-09-25.pdf

                “Anonymous wrote, “There are lots of examples of this sort.” Provide the examples of groups in the political right that fit within the “terrorist” label …”

                When I wrote “There are lots of examples of this sort,” I was referring to both of my previous examples and my claim “Both sides (and those in the middle) are “Liberty minded Constitutionalists” at times and not at other times.” “There are lots of examples of people being constitutionalists some of the time and not other times, depending on the issue and whether the Constitution supports their other views or not.

    1. I have no problem with DC statehood as long as I get my statehood wish list fulfilled:
      Southern and western Virginia (literally despise DC’s suburban snobs)
      Southern Illinois (under hostile occupation by Cook County)
      Eastern Washington state (tired of reporting to Beijing)
      Eastern Oregon (ditto)
      Upstate New York (de Blasio–enough said)
      Rural Pennsylvania (people who work should not be ruled by people who don’t)
      Rural Georgia (Atlanta doesn’t need its own state; it needs its own planet).

      Otherwise, FUGGET ABOUT IT.

      1. Add Colorado west of the Divide to that list…with the exception of Pitkin and Eagle Counties. I believe nearly every state with a big city has this issue.

Leave a Reply