Should the State of Washington be renamed?

[United Hemand Insia]

It's already a broad difference. Washington state isn't as corrupt.

Touche.

Indeed it is. I would know that fact quite well as I have lived in this very blue hellhole for my whole life.

[Asardia]

What we should do is change the name of the capital to District of Columbia. Whenever you say "Washington", are you talking about the state or the city?

"Oh but just say DC to clarify!"

e x a c t l y

It's not really as easy to change a name as you expect it to be. It has to go through legislation and all that.

Yes, I am aware of that. But if we were taking that into account, then this entire thread is meaningless since neither the state nor the city will be renamed. I'm just saying that if a change were to occur, then it should be focused on making the names more distinguishable.

[Untecna]

Touche.

Indeed it is. I would know that fact quite well as I have lived in this very blue hellhole for my whole life.

I feel like DC would be more red or blue depending on the president at the time and the majorities in the Congress.

[United Hemand Insia]

Indeed it is. I would know that fact quite well as I have lived in this very blue hellhole for my whole life.

I feel like DC would be more red or blue depending on the president at the time and the majorities in the Congress.

I'm talking about the state.

[United Hemand Insia]

It's not really as easy to change a name as you expect it to be. It has to go through legislation and all that.

Yes, I am aware of that. But if we were taking that into account, then this entire thread is meaningless since neither the state nor the city will be renamed. I'm just saying that if a change were to occur, then it should be focused on making the names more distinguishable.

This is meaningless thread and I still don't understand why people call Washington a homophobe or why people want to rename our state.

[Insaanistan]

Indeed it is. I would know that fact quite well as I have lived in this very blue hellhole for my whole life.

I feel like DC would be more red or blue depending on the president at the time and the majorities in the Congress.

No, DC is Democrat. Hence why Republicans don’t want it to become a state.

[Dollystana]

I feel like DC would be more red or blue depending on the president at the time and the majorities in the Congress.

No, DC is Democrat. Hence why Republicans don’t want it to become a state.

Literally the entire point of DC is for it to not be a state... Prove me wrong.

[United Hemand Insia]

I feel like DC would be more red or blue depending on the president at the time and the majorities in the Congress.

No, DC is Democrat. Hence why Republicans don’t want it to become a state.

It won't become a state. Why is everything a damn argument nowadays?

[Asardia]

Yes, I am aware of that. But if we were taking that into account, then this entire thread is meaningless since neither the state nor the city will be renamed. I'm just saying that if a change were to occur, then it should be focused on making the names more distinguishable.

This is meaningless thread and I still don't understand why people call Washington a homophobe or why people want to rename our state.

I think renaming the state is ridiculous if the only criteria is that he was a slave owner. Obviously, being a slave owner and a hypocrite is bad, but changing a state's name doesn't undo that. As for Washington being a homophobe....well, he probably was, but at the same time, his leadership gave us a system of government that allowed homosexuals equality.

Regardless, it's a discussion because of the confederate statue removals. The arguments that extend to removing statues of Robert E. Lee can be extended to also tearing down the Washington Monument or, as we see here, changing the names of a city and a state

[United Hemand Insia]

This is meaningless thread and I still don't understand why people call Washington a homophobe or why people want to rename our state.

I think renaming the state is ridiculous if the only criteria is that he was a slave owner. Obviously, being a slave owner and a hypocrite is bad, but changing a state's name doesn't undo that. As for Washington being a homophobe....well, he probably was, but at the same time, his leadership gave us a system of government that allowed homosexuals equality.

Regardless, it's a discussion because of the confederate statue removals. The arguments that extend to removing statues of Robert E. Lee can be extended to also tearing down the Washington Monument or, as we see here, changing the names of a city and a state

Removing statues or changing names won't change the damage America did to people of color.

[Insaanistan]

No, DC is Democrat. Hence why Republicans don’t want it to become a state.

Literally the entire point of DC is for it to not be a state... Prove me wrong.

I mean... kinda? Ish?

[United Hemand Insia]

Literally the entire point of DC is for it to not be a state... Prove me wrong.

I mean... kinda? Ish?

It's not supposed to be a state, that's just common sense. It's the FEDERAL DISTRICT, hence why it's the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA!

[Asardia]

No, DC is Democrat. Hence why Republicans don’t want it to become a state.

Literally the entire point of DC is for it to not be a state... Prove me wrong.

That was the point. However, with 600k people living there, we need to take into consideration the changes in our society. Women and minorities were never meant to be equals in the US, yet we have amendments dedicated to enshrining protections for them. What the Founders envisioned in 1787 should be taken into account, but....why should 684,498 be unable to be represented the same way as Wyoming, the least populous state? If 577,000 people in Wyoming can have 2 senators and a representative, then D.C might as well should become a state. Or, we could just give it a special status. D.C can have 2 senators and one representative, but the state operates the same besides that.

[Greed and Death]

Literally the entire point of DC is for it to not be a state... Prove me wrong.

That was the point. However, with 600k people living there, we need to take into consideration the changes in our society. Women and minorities were never meant to be equals in the US, yet we have amendments dedicated to enshrining protections for them. What the Founders envisioned in 1787 should be taken into account, but....why should 684,498 be unable to be represented the same way as Wyoming, the least populous state? If 577,000 people in Wyoming can have 2 senators and a representative, then D.C might as well should become a state. Or, we could just give it a special status. D.C can have 2 senators and one representative, but the state operates the same besides that.

Because when Wyoming was admitted to be a state 80% of the us lived in Rural America and Wyoming was one of the fastest growing regions in the US. The outlook for Wyoming was good at the time of admission.
DC has not yet returned to its peak in 1950. Its population is flat and prone the shrieking. General trends are toward living in suburbs and DC is an example of this. Its outlook in short is not good.

[Chestaan]

Nah, if you Americans were to rename every place named after some bastard who owned slaves or murdered countless civilians in wars etc. then basically half the country would be renamed.

[Asardia]

That was the point. However, with 600k people living there, we need to take into consideration the changes in our society. Women and minorities were never meant to be equals in the US, yet we have amendments dedicated to enshrining protections for them. What the Founders envisioned in 1787 should be taken into account, but....why should 684,498 be unable to be represented the same way as Wyoming, the least populous state? If 577,000 people in Wyoming can have 2 senators and a representative, then D.C might as well should become a state. Or, we could just give it a special status. D.C can have 2 senators and one representative, but the state operates the same besides that.

Because when Wyoming was admitted to be a state 80% of the us lived in Rural America and Wyoming was one of the fastest growing regions in the US. The outlook for Wyoming was good at the time of admission.
DC has not yet returned to its peak in 1950. Its population is flat and prone the shrieking. General trends are toward living in suburbs and DC is an example of this. Its outlook in short is not good.

That's actually a really compelling argument. If the trend continues, then yeah, statehood probably isn't the best option. I think this is why Puerto Rico also isn't going to become a state. Hmm

[United Hemand Insia]

Come on, man! It should be renamed BIDENIA!

No. Just no.

[San Lumen]

No there is no reason to do so. Washington was the first president and was the right leader for the time. He was the only person who could have unified the country at the time. He deserves to have a state named for him.

[United Hemand Insia]

No there is no reason to do so. Washington was the first president and was the right leader for the time. He was the only person who could have unified the country at the time. He deserves to have a state named for him.

Wish it was a state that was politically centered since he didn't belong to a party.

[Albrenia]

No, it should not be renamed.

[Untecna]

No there is no reason to do so. Washington was the first president and was the right leader for the time. He was the only person who could have unified the country at the time. He deserves to have a state named for him.

As well as several other good things for our nation, but yes.

[-Ocelot-]

Nah, if you Americans were to rename every place named after some bastard who owned slaves or murdered countless civilians in wars etc. then basically half the country would be renamed.

People's values were different then and for the worse. Changing names because some guy was a bigot in the 19th century is irrational. If a person dislikes a country that much, maybe they should emigrate to a magical land where no-one's ancestor was bigoted, instead of demanding that a entire state should change its name.

[Insaanistan]

Nah, if you Americans were to rename every place named after some bastard who owned slaves or murdered countless civilians in wars etc. then basically half the country would be renamed.

People's values were different then and for the worse. Changing names because some guy was a bigot in the 19th century is irrational. If a person dislikes a country that much, maybe they should emigrate to a magical land where no-one's ancestor was bigoted, instead of demanding that a entire state should change its name.

Ooooor... we recognize the difference between Washington, Jefferson and Jefferson Davis.

[FutureAmerica]

Rename it to what? The "12th" man state?

[Insaanistan]

Rename it to what? The "12th" man state?

“North Oregon”