He supports the Constitution.  He may be in the wrong party.

I actually consider it to be refreshing that a lawmaker indicates that his preference is due to legal and constitutional precedent rather than being chained to party policy.  I hope he isn't treated by his party the dirty way the Republicans treat Liz Chaney.  However, it doesn't make sense to me that the residents of D.C. are disenfranchised, so I would think that the problem should be solved, but the way required by The Constitution.

Yet Manchin doesn't seem to have a grasp of the legal and constitutional process of a Constitutional Amendment. 

The 'American people' don't 'vote' on a Constitutional Amendment. Perhaps Manchin needs to get more advice from those 'legal scholars' he spoke of. 

So why aren't the Democrats for letting DC rejoin Maryland, where the land came from? The same way land from DC was given back to Virginia. 

Because the Democrats don't give a rats ass about what is right. They want two more seats in the Senate, extra representation in the House, and more say in the electoral college.

A Constitutional Amendment is meant to represent the people of the states; not a bunch of Democrat hacks in Congress.

archives

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

Democrats are trying to bypass the states; because they know they don't have the votes.  Flyover country will never dilute their power further than it already is. This isn't about equal representation. This is all about the Democrats making a power grab to stay in control.

So why aren't the Democrats for letting DC rejoin Maryland, where the land came from? The same way land from DC was given back to Virginia. 

A Constitutional Amendment is meant to represent the people of the states; not a bunch of Democrat hacks in Congress.

The way that land from DC was retroceded to Virginia was by the people petitioning to government for redress, NOT a Constitutional Amendment. 

The so-called “Clause 17” of Article I, Section 8 deals with the issue that the Constitution’s framers had agreed that the new nation’s capital should be located in a district that was independent any particular state government and subject only to federal control. Thus the plan was to create a federal district no more than ten miles square from land ceded by one or more states to house the U.S. national capital, which was accomplished when the  Compromise of 1790  ended with agreement to form the District of Columbia from landed ceded by Maryland and Virginia. The national capital was temporarily relocated from New York to Philadelphia while construction began on homes for the president and Congress, and in 1800 the United States’ capital was moved again (for the final time) to Washington, D.C., in December 1800.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/article-1-section-8-clause-17/#:~:text=Article%201%2C%20Section%208%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution,consent%20of%20the%20State%20where%20same%20is%20located.%22

And by 1847 Virginia succeeded in getting it's land and people back with full voting rights and representation in VA.

It's kind of ironic for the 78 square miles of Maryland D.C. to still be without the very rights we fought the British for.

At a minimum, Maryland  D.C. deserves the same consideration already afforded Virginia D.C. in 1847.

Try it and it will be challenged and I'm sure the SCOTUS will take it up.

We get it. We know about the voters in DC:


washingtoncitypaper


NO POWER GRAB ON OUR WATCH!

Try it?

Dude, roll back the power trip.

It's not in  my jurisdiction, lol.

but retrocession denies the Dems 2 Senators a voting House rep whil making the residents of D.C.

MD voters.  Problem solved, GOP gets a draw and the issue is forever shelved.

But keep assuming, it's amusing.

It's not in  my jurisdiction, lol.

It requires a Constitutional Amendment. Thank God it still takes more that 50 votes + 1 POS vp.

Thanks for the already understood and recognized history lesson Vic. 

It was my Pleasure.

CAN'T HAVE ALL THOSE DEMOCRATS VOTING NOW CAN WE?

It requires a Constitutional Amendment. Thank God it still takes more that 50 votes + 1 POS vp.

Since Virginia's retrocession didn't take a Constitutional Amendment, why would Maryland's? 

I though you read everything for yourself?  What's your interpretation of  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?

You're deflecting Vic. Answer my fucking question.

Oh and BTFW, how did Article I, Section 8 control the Virginia retrocession? Hint: It DIDN'T. 

In short, once they whacked off one portion of DC, the precedent was set to whack off another. 

You're deflecting Vic.

It is the heart of the issue. No Constitutional Amendment = No State of DC.

It is the heart of the issue. 

Nope. You made a statement and I asked you a question about it. Here it is again:

Since Virginia's retrocession didn't take a Constitutional Amendment, why would Maryland's? 

Answer?

No Constitutional Amendment = No State of DC.

What does D.C. stand for in your comment Vic? 

What does D.C. stand for in your comment Vic? 

The District of Columbia, which is the area that was carved out, quite legally, as the nation's capitol.

The District of Columbia, which is the area that was carved out, quite legally, as the nation's capitol.

Well the House bill designates the new state as Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. 

So for ONCE you are right, there will be no 'state of the District of Columbia'. 

The House Bill will have little importance if the Court rules it unconstitutional.

Who has standing Vic? 

That would depend on how far the House Bill goes. The Senate has 3 more shots at reconciliation, thanks to the new Parliamentarian - who differes from her predecessor. Schumer has already got a lot sitting on his plate.

I like an article I read a while back. As the argument is being framed as taxation without representation, put the question to the voters of DC. 

Would they rather be a state with Congressmen and Senators or would they rather not pay federal taxes.  I know how I would vote.

I understand what you are saying, but the inhabitants of DC can't even be trusted to serve on a jury.

How is this AGAINST the Constitution?

[deleted]

So you speak for Vic?  I believe he can speak for himself.  

If it was against the Constitution, I'm quite sure he would have pointed it out.  Or not.  

[deleted]

That question has been asked in more than one seed and it never gets answered cogently. They seem to just blurt out 'unconstitutional' like they have tourette syndrome. 

[deleted]

They seem to just blurt out 'unconstitutional' like they have tourette syndrome. 

Not unlike liberals like to spout out "racist".

Not unlike liberals like to spout out "racist".

Yet YOU are the only one who has brought it up. Well done. 

It’s not by accident or oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution.  Article I, Section 8  provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state, but rather a unique enclave under the exclusive authority of Congress — a neutral “district” in which representatives of all the states could meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business.

msn

So it's not UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Just as I thought.  

No, that would make him an R, not a D.

I like him a lot more than my Senators 

It’s not only a dumb idea. It’s probably unconstitutional.

Probably.  Well that settles it!  If it actually wasn't I'm sure you would tell folks chapter and verse, exactly how it isn't.  

Probably.  Well that settles it!  If it actually wasn't I'm sure you would tell folks chapter and verse, exactly how it isn't.  

My opinion is just my opinion and I only stated it in brief because I felt like being brief. But it is at least based in actual reason and not irrational emotion or partisan politics. If you really want chapter and verse, I can help you. The federal seat of government (now known as the District of Columbia) is defined in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings

So by saying Congress has exclusive power over this district, it is clearly federally controlled territory. It is not - and cannot be - an autonomous state. We could make DC a state, I suppose, but I believe it would have to cease being the center of the federal government. And then we would have new problem: creating a new Seat of the Government of the United States. And then we’d be right back where we are now. We wouldn’t have solved anything.

Whatever?

Yeah, that’s about what I expected.

[Deleted]

So by saying Congress has exclusive power over this district, it is clearly federally controlled territory. It is not - and cannot be - an autonomous state.

Correlation is not causation.

You conveniently left out the 'legislative' part of the Amendment. If the Congress makes DC a state, isn't THAT Congress acting on it's 'exclusive legislative power'? 

DC ALREADY has an 'autonomous' government and taxation system. It lacks equal federal representation. 

If the Congress makes DC a state, isn't THAT Congress acting on it's 'exclusive legislative power'? 

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to accept land ceded from the states so that it will be used as the seat of government, not to turn it into another state.

The Constitution does not PROHIBIT the Congress from making the DC a state. Nor does DC becoming a state PROHIBIT it from being the seat of government. 

As you should well know, the bill passed by the House does NOT include land under Federal jurisdiction.

So why try to pretend that suddenly our 'seat of government' is somehow in jeopardy if DC becomes a state? 

The Constitution does not PROHIBIT the Congress from

That’s not what the Constitution does. That’s not how it works. Congress doesn’t have every power you can imagine except for what it is prohibited to do. Rather, Congress has the power that the Constitution gives to it and nothing more. Those are “enumerated powers.” That’s what’s going on in Article I. If it’s not in there, Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. 

Furthermore, the powers not granted to Congress are reserved to the people and the states. That’s the 9th and 10th Amendments. Other Amendments do explicitly limit what Congress can do because some of the framers of the Constitution were concerned about Congress overstepping their enumerated authority. There was debate at the time that such limitations were not necessary and that creating them would give people the impression that Congress could do anything as long as it wasn’t expressly prohibited. In other words, they were trying to prevent the very approach you are talking about.

Some quick history for perspective and context: The District of Columbia is actually a pretty small area. By the terms of the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, it can’t be more than 10 miles on a side. This actually was the original size when President Washington picked out the land to be used. It was a square 10 miles on each side, oriented as a diamond, and made up of land ceded for the purpose of creating the seat of government . It was not ceded so that Congress could do any old thing with it like make states, give it to France, turn it into a nuclear testing ground or wherever our imaginations may take us.

There is a process for admitting a state to the Union, and that, too, is defined in the Constitution. Article IV, Section 3 reads:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The ceded land for DC came from Virginia and Maryland. The land on the Virginia side of the Potomac has since been returned to Virginia. Land that is/was part of the states of Maryland and/or Virginia cannot be made into a new state without the consent of the legislatures of Maryland and Virginia. It’s hard to see these states just giving away their land if they don’t have to.

There have been some strange cases over the years. Vermont was once part of New York, but became a state through a negotiated settlement with the government of New York. Similarly, Maine was once part of Massachusetts, and did not become a sovereign state until the Massachusetts legislature voted to allow it. West Virginia is different. It was once part of Virginia, but broke away and became its own state only after Virginia had seceded from the United States and declared war.

Over time, a big city has grown up around this government center, but only a little over 600,000 people actually live within the limits of DC. Everyone else in the DC metro area - which is more like 6 million people - are residents of either Maryland or Virginia and already have all the representation they have coming to them. Under the 23rd Amendment, they already have three electoral votes for president. Apparently, several residents actually vote in other states already . I think when we talk about the people of Washington DC, a lot of people envision millions of people without representation, but the current bill in Congress is not so sweeping.

I think a much simpler, less politically disruptive solution would be to simply recognize all 600,000+ residents of DC proper as residents of Maryland, allow them to vote for Maryland’s senators, and make their representative in the House a voting member from the state of Maryland.

As you should well know, the bill passed by the House does NOT include land under Federal jurisdiction.

Indeed. It would be state land. The bill would reduce the actual size of the district, which means that the residents of DC would no longer be residents of the district. If they aren’t residents of the district, they are residents of a state.

H.R. 51 , would reduce the size of the federal district and create a new state with the remaining territory with two U.S. senators and a representative, placing residents on equal footing with voters in other states.

Reducing the size of the district would be returning the land to the states. The people living in that area would again be residents of the state. Per the Constitution, Congress can’t make this land a new state without the approval of the existing state legislatures.

Retrocession was accomplished once already for the same reasons, lack of representation.

Virginia took back it's 31 square miles in 1847 leaving Federal property, Federal while granting full rights as Virginians to the

Virginia D.C. residents.

Absolutely no reason why Maryland cannot do the same except that the voters in D.C. voted for statehood

and it's a partisan football with the 2020 Bill passed along party lines in the House and shelved by Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

Whether it gives one party an advantage now, should be immaterial. 

The residents should come first, and we all know, people switch parties and priorities over time, no area is safe from assumption.

The current version of the Maryland retrocession has only GOP cosponsors for obvious reasons...

That’s what’s going on in Article I. If it’s not in there, Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. 

THEN you state: 

There is a process for admitting a state to the Union, and that, too, is defined in the Constitution. Article IV, Section 3 reads:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union

You know those two statements are contradictory, right? So WHICH is it? 

Land that is/was part of the states of Maryland and/or Virginia cannot be made into a new state without the consent of the legislatures of Maryland and Virginia.

Once ceded, neither state have a fucking thing to say about it. 

Indeed. It would be state land. The bill would reduce the actual size of the district, which means that the residents of DC would no longer be residents of the district. If they aren’t residents of the district, they are residents of a state.

Yes, a NEW state's land. 

I think a much simpler, less politically disruptive solution would be to simply recognize all 600,000+ residents of DC proper as residents of Maryland, allow them to vote for Maryland’s senators, and make their representative in the House a voting member from the state of Maryland.

So since you posit that Maryland has to consent to DC becoming a state, is Maryland's consent needed for retrocession? How about the consent of the voters in DC? 

Indeed. It would be state land. The bill would reduce the actual size of the district, which means that the residents of DC would no longer be residents of the district. If they aren’t residents of the district, they are residents of a state.

The bill the House just passed creates that state...

Reducing the size of the district would be returning the land to the states. The people living in that area would again be residents of the state. Per the Constitution, Congress can’t make this land a new state without the approval of the existing state legislatures.

Cite the Article and Section. 

hat’s not what the Constitution does. That’s not how it works. Congress doesn’t have every power you can imagine except for what it is prohibited to do. Rather, Congress has the power that the Constitution gives to it and nothing more. Those are “enumerated powers.

Sad how ignorant many in this country are about basic constitutional principles.  

Sad how ignorant many in this country are about basic constitutional principles. 

Exactly! Imagine not knowing that the Constitution empowers the Congress to create a new state. 

Whether it gives one party an advantage now, should be immaterial. 

That's not realistic, though. The history of our country is filled with political horse trading when it comes to state admission. Most notorious, of course, was the practice of admitting one slave state at the same time as a free state. But even after slavery, there has been a concern in Congress with maintaining some kind of political balance in the Senate.

Again, if what we really care about is giving people representation, all we have to do is allow DC residents to vote for Maryland senators, and give the DC rep a vote in the House. It is not necessary to create a whole new state.

You know those two statements are contradictory, right?

No, they're not. That makes zero sense. How in the world is saying that states can be admitted contradictory to stating that a process for it exists? 

Once ceded, neither state have a fucking thing to say about it. 

Feel free to cite a source for that claim. I have been consistently citing the Constitution, which declares that the ceded territory becomes the seat of government for the United States. Nowhere does it give Congress the power to turn that territory into a state.

Per the Constitution, Congress can’t make this land a new state without the approval of the existing state legislatures. Cite the Article and Section. 

I already did. The two sections I have cited. And I have explained how they apply to the facts. You have cited nothing to support your angry opinion.

No, they're not. That makes zero sense. How in the world is saying that states can be admitted contradictory to stating that a process for it exists?

You made TWO different statements. They are contradictory. 

ONE:

That’s what’s going on in Article I. If it’s not in there, Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. 

If it's not in Article I Congress doesn't have the power to do it. 

THEN you state: 

There is a process for admitting a state to the Union, and that, too, is defined in the Constitution. Article IV, Section 3 reads:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union

It's obvious to any thinking person that even though the Admissions Clause is NOT in Article I, Congress DOES have the power to do it. 

Hence, your second statement contradicts your first. 

Thanks for playing. 

Nowhere does it give Congress the power to turn that territory into a state.

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

READ that S L O W L Y. 

I already did. The two sections I have cited. And I have explained how they apply to the facts.

Correlation isn't causation Tacos. Just because the Articles use the some of the same words that you do, doesn't mean that they prove your posit. They don't. 

You have the unfounded idea that the Virginia retrocession was REGUIRED by the Constitution. The historical FACTS show that THE PEOPLE went through over 40 YEARS of petitions, votes and referendums for that to happen. 

Oh and BTFW, the REASON they cited are much the same as they are for DC statehood today.  

You have cited nothing to support your angry opinion.

Devolving to personal comments I see. Typical. 

Imagine not knowing that the Constitution empowers the Congress to create a new state. 

Imagine thinking that's what this debate it about.  Read it again.

Hopefully you now understand the  concept of enumerated powers tacos kindly explained to you. If you can grasp that, it's a big win for you.  

It's obvious to any thinking person that even though the Admissions Clause is NOT in Article I, Congress DOES have the power to do it. 

If that was what you got out of my comments then you might not be thinking as much you imagine. You have quoted me out of context by ignoring the preceding sentences in that [paragraph.deleted] Here is the whole paragraph with some added important bolding, since - at best - you didn’t understand it:

That’s not what the Constitution does. That’s not how it works. Congress doesn’t have every power you can imagine except for what it is prohibited to do. Rather, Congress has the power that the Constitution gives to it and nothing more. Those are “enumerated powers.” That’s what’s going on in Article I. If it’s not in there, Congress doesn’t have the power to do it.

So to summarize [deleted] I wasn’t just talking about Article I. I was talking about the original Constitution as a whole. Get it now?

I then went on to discuss amendments - the first ten of which, deal in specific restrictions on what the federal government can do. These distinctions were plain in my comments. All you have to do is read what’s there, but you can’t pick a line or two out of context and expect to understand what was said. And when you do, it makes it real hard to take you seriously.

Thanks for playing.

Dickish comments like that don’t help your credibility either.

Correlation isn't causation

This is the second time you have used this aphorism to no point. I let it go the first time out of politeness, but since you refuse to be polite, I might as well point out how dumb this phrase looks when you use it this way.

Devolving to personal comments I see. Typical. 

Boy is that ironic coming from you.

You still haven’t offered anything of substance for this discussion. You have cited to nothing and your whole argument is just anger and partisanship. We’re done here.

Again, if what we really care about is giving people representation, all we have to do is allow DC residents to vote for Maryland senators, and give the DC rep a vote in the House. It is not necessary to create a whole new state.

I guess I will have to work on my presentation, as I did not advocate for a new state,

and thought I clearly stated that while common sense favors retrocession, the Dems will never be in favor it

as evidenced by the flip flop in support of it by the GOP House.

Imagine thinking that's what this debate it about.  Read it again. Hopefully you now understand the  concept of enumerated powers tacos kindly explained to you. If you can grasp that, it's a big win for you. 

I understand the concept quite well Sean. 

I ALSO understand that Tacos stated that Congress' enumerated powers exist exclusively within Article I. 

I further understand that Article IV ENUMERATES the powers Congress enjoys to admit new states. 

Thanks for playing. 

Here is the whole paragraph with some added important bolding, since - at best - you didn’t understand it:

That’s not what the Constitution does. That’s not how it works. Congress doesn’t have every power you can imagine except for what it is prohibited to do. Rather, Congress has the power that the Constitution gives to it and nothing more. Those are “enumerated powers.” That’s what’s going on in Article I. If it’s not in there, Congress doesn’t have the power to do it.

Pretty hilarious that you whine about ME quoting you out of context and then highlight in bold what YOU want. 

Those are “enumerated powers.” That’s what’s going on in Article I.

Are you claiming that in the above statement you do NOT mean that the enumerated powers that the Constitution give the Congress are in Article I? 

So to summarize [deleted] I wasn’t just talking about Article I. I was talking about the original Constitution as a whole. Get it now?

Then WHY include: 'That’s what’s going on in Article I.'? 

What I get is that you're trying to weasel your way out of your original statement because you can't defend it and can't manage to get yourself to admit it was wrong. 

All you have to do is read what’s there, but you can’t pick a line or two out of context and expect to understand what was said. And when you do, it makes it real hard to take you seriously.

That's an interesting standard and one that YOU fail to meet yourself.

One need only READ the block quote at the beginning of your 3.1.19 comment. You picked a line from my comment, out of context. By your standard, you shouldn't be taken seriously. 

Dickish comments like that don’t help your credibility either.

I don't give a shit about what anyone here on NT thinks of my credibility. 

This is the second time you have used this aphorism to no point. I let it go the first time out of politeness, but since you refuse to be polite, I might as well point out how dumb this phrase looks when you use it this way.

Being polite here is a goal neither you or I have ever achieved and one I have never aspired to. 

As for how anything looks to you, I could not care less. 

Boy is that ironic coming from you.

No. 

You still haven’t offered anything of substance for this discussion. You have cited to nothing and your whole argument is just anger and partisanship. We’re done here.

You reply is to my comment which cites Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 & 2. Why lie? 

I don't give a shit about what anyone here on NT thinks of my credibility. 

Clearly! You finally said something we can all agree on. Let’s quite while we’re ahead.

Good. Day.

"You conveniently left out the 'legislative' part of the Amendment. If the Congress makes DC a state, isn't THAT Congress acting on it's 'exclusive legislative power'?"

What else is new.

Thank you Dulay, and SP, for the facts, as usual

"Dickish comments like that don’t help your credibility either."

Dickish comments appear to be all some folks have.

"I don't give a shit about what anyone here on NT thinks of my credibility."

Same here, although I know you are credible!

It’s probably unconstitutional.

It wasn't unconstitutional for the existing 50 states. 

There's no amendment or clause dealing specifically with any of the 50 states, either. There are for DC

See @3.1.1

Actually, there sure as fuck is a 'clause dealing specifically with the process for how 37 of those 50 states came into being.

Try reading what I wrote again. It's pretty straight forward. I'm sure you can grasp it on a  second try. 

My comment proves that I grasped your comment from the get go Sean. 

However, you seem not to grasp the Admissions Clause of the Constitution. 

It sounds like Manchin won't support anything President Biden wants to achieve.  He's an ass if he thinks republicans will ever cooperate with President Biden or any Democrat.  

yeah, it's a damn shame when a Democrat supports the Constitution

It sounds like Manchin won't support anything President Biden wants to achieve.

He won't support anything his West Virginian base won't support, sadly many of them are just scared shitless of a black majority city that currently has no actual representation gaining a voice in our body politic. Manchin is just preserving his own ass much like any other politician regardless of which side of the aisle they're on. The urge for self preservation is far stronger than the urge to do the right thing.

The Dems only goal is two more Senators....they don't really care about the black residents living there.

Your comment makes no fucking sense at all. 

Is it your ridiculous posit that the two new Senators from DC wouldn't care about the black residents that elected them? Are you ignoring the likelihood that the at least one of those two Senators would actually BE a black resident? 

We know who doesn't really care about the black residents living there.

That's not the DEMOCRATS.  

It sounds like Manchin won't support anything President Biden wants to achieve.

Manchin is really gloating over the idea that he hold such sway over politics in the Capital right now. He thinks he can have his cake and eat it too from both sides of the aisle.

He can gloat now, but, like all 'Karens', male and female, it will all come back to haunt him in the not too distant future. And I will do the turkey farting dance when it happens. 

Manchin is obviously a DINO.  A real asshole too!

He's one of the very rare decent and patriotic Democrats.

No, he's not.  He managed to get his daughter, Heather Bresch, an MBA from WVU without earning it while he was governor - she had slightly over half the credit hours required.  Her degree was rescinded and the university president took the fall.

He appointed his wife Gayle to serve on WV's Board of Education, which launched her to lead the National Association of State Boards of Education.  She used that position to push lucrative deals for Mylan Pharmaceuticals to be the provider of the vast majority of Epipens stocked by public schools.  The CEO of Mylan Pharmaceuticals was the Manchins' daughter, Heather Bresch, who retained her position despite having had her MBA rescinded.

A few years later, Mylan hiked their prices on Epipens.

He's crooked, and his family with him.

fits right in then.

We have all seen from the actions of politicians on both sides that this is hardly exclusively a Democratic politician problem.  But you knew that already.

well, since I didn't state where he fit in, what did you assume?

Shuffle, shuffle, Tex.  We know your game.

wow, nice way to avoid answering!

He's crooked, and his family with him.

Typical run of the mill Democrat

Sure, sure.  No Republican has ever engaged in self-dealing or nepotism.  I can name some very recent and visible examples, if you like.

"EpiPen prices aren't the only thing to jump at Mylan," NBC News reported. According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Bresch's total compensation went from $2,453,456 to $18,931,068 from 2007 to 2015. That's a striking 671 percent increase. That period coincides with the time when Mylan acquired the rights to EpiPens and steadily hiked the average wholesale price from about $55 to $320.

chicagotribune

He's crooked, and his family with him.

He must have learned from the Biden family

So he is a DINO.  Thanks for the truth Sandy.  

He must have learned from the trump crime family.  

What ever with Manchin.  Still can't understand why he's against getting 22nd Century jobs and installations for the people of his state.  Do the 'Coal Folk' have something on him?

As far as D.C. Statehood----------Montana is a state, right?  There it is.  There you have it.

I forgot he was from West Virginia.  Maybe the 'Coal Folk' do have something on him.  

The coal unions are sending a big message to Manchin. 

Coal miners join climate activists to back Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan

cnn

I know that.  Except the 'Coal Miners' and 'The Coal Folk (owners )' are two separate entities. 

IMHO, to me, Manchin is a Democrat DINO, as he seems to side, vote and support more to the right wing side than the Democrat side. He runs as a Democrat only so that he can keep getting re-elected, but, from the way he talks, votes and sides with the GOP, he betrays himself as a Democrat, and the party he is supposed to support. 

I can understand him doing this on a few occasions, but, he has been doing this for years, so it is not something new, or just recent. 

So he might as well just join the GOP and stop the fame playing and betrayal. He is not fooling anyone anymore.

That reminds me of another DINO.  I can't remember the scumbag's name now but he ran as a Democrat and then switched parties or whatever betraying all those who voted for him.  

West Virginians Eager for Biden Money Despite Senator's Concerns

usnews

Seems that even some Republicans in WV are supportive of the infrastructure plan.

WV rates very low in most categories so the question should be, Joe what have you done for WV?

then switched parties or whatever betraying all those who voted for him.  

I guess that is why Manchin runs as a Democrat, but, votes and sides with the GOP, betraying his voters, some of whom may be too ignorant to realize that, his running as a Dem is only because he can't compete with the Republicans in his district and could not get nominated, much less win against them.

So his playbook is to run as a Dem and then act as a Repub.

He really should switch parties, so should Kyrsten Sinema,

he probably and admitting hasn't done as much as The King of Pork.

so are you saying Democrats are stupid enough to elect a Democrat who votes like a Republican?

his "district" is the entire state. and is one that the GOP has done pretty well in over the last 10 years. he could probably run and win as a Republican.

It sounds like Manchin won't support anything President Biden wants to achieve.

Manchin is really gloating over the idea that he hold such sway over politics in the Capital right now. He thinks he can have his cake and eat it too from both sides of the aisle.

He can gloat now, but, like all 'Karens', male and female, it will all come back to haunt him in the not too distant future. And I will do the turkey farting dance when it happens.