Senator Joe Manchin is willing to
show Democratic voters just how low
he's willing to go in parroting
right wing talking points.
This time it's in the context of DC
statehood, a state that has, or I
should say, an area of the country
that has nearly 700,000 residents.
But they don't get the Democratic
representation they deserve.
So there has been an effort in
order to make DC a state to ensure
that they're properly represented
in this representative democracy.
But Joe Manchin,
a conservative Democrat,
isn't having it.
And he gives you a weak sauce
reason for why in this interview,
take a listen.
>> Do you support or
oppose congressional action to make
Washington, DC a state?
I did a deep dive on that and
I had my staff go through it.
It's not a new one,
the DC statehood [INAUDIBLE]
President Reagan's
Justice Department carefully.
He really carefully reviewed it
with legal scholars in 1987.
President Carter's Justice
Department did the same thing ten
years before that.
Attorney General Bobby Kennedy
looked into it.
They all came to the same
conclusion.
If Congress wants to make DC
a state, it should
propose a constitutional amendment.
It should propose a constitutional
amendment and
let the people of America vote.
There are a lot of things that make
DC different than any state and
territory.
But the most important that comes
to its statehood is the 23rd
Amendment of the Constitution.
>> So if it's going to be
a statehood question it should be
done by constitutional amendment.
You would oppose a unilateral
action by congress to make DC
a state, correct?
>> Yeah, so I would, and I would
tell all my friends, [INAUDIBLE] if
you go down that path because you
want to be politically popular, or
whatever you're sneaking out of
this, you know it's going to
go to the Supreme Court.
Every legal scholar has told us
that, so why not do it the right
way and let the people vote and
see if they want to change.
>> It's interesting that he claims
to have done a deep dive because
any individual who did a deep dive
on this matter would
want to understand how all these
other states
became part of this union, right?
How did other parts of
this country become states?
Was it done by
a constitutional amendment?
No, that's actually not how
it happened.
So, the reasoning that he's giving
you is ridiculous and
he's also lying to you when he
claims that he's done a deep dive.
He's done no such thing.
In fact, delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton, also a Democrat, said that
those who make such an assertion
are conflating a policy choice and
a constitutional requirement.
All 37 new states were emitted by
Congress.
And there has never been a
successful constitutional challenge
to the admission of a state.
The Constitution commits admission
decisions solely to Congress.
Looks like she did a deep dive,
looks like she did a deep dive.
Maybe with Jordan Ewell, who hosts
a show called Deep Dive on our
Twitch channel, twitch.tv/tyt.
But Senator Manchin did not do
a deep dive.
>> Yeah,
and nor is he allowed on Deep Dive
the show.
>> He's allowed, but
he'll get crushed.
>> Yeah, we allowed him here.
I did an interview with him on TYT.
I thought it went fairly well for
me as Cenks.
All right, anyways, Tom Zywalkie,
he's one of our members, and
he wrote in, Ana,
you should have ended the joke at
Joe Manchin has thoughts.
[LAUGH] Okay, so
now let's get to the reality.
So now you know that every state
was admitted without an amendment.
Alaska was in 1959.
A simple majority of Congress,
Eisenhower signs it, it's done.
It's that simple, okay?
The very thin excuse they have is,
the 23rd amendment talks about
the District of Columbia,
where that holds the seat of power,
and it gives them the ability
to vote for president, okay?
It sets up a system to do that.
Okay, great, where does it say in
the 23rd Amendment that it cannot
be a state?
No, it gave them some
representation.
Now it left out their
representation in Congress, so
they don't have senators and
they don't have a congressperson.
Now, the fact that they let them
vote in the presidential elections
does not mean that they were not
allowed to have a congressional
member or be in a state.
I read that amendment three times
today because he said is so
confidently, I was like,
wait, did I miss it?
Does it say so,
it's not allowed to be a state?
No, it doesn't say that at all.
Does it say that they're not
allowed to have
any other representation?
It does not say that at all.
And If Joe Manchin is so confident
that he's right about the Supreme
Court, well, then that's easy.
And he's got a 6-3 advantage,
packed with conservatives, right?
So why don't we vote to make DC
a state and then let it go
to the Supreme Court?
And if you're right, and
you've done your deep dive,
then the Supreme Court,
which is very conservative,
will read the amendment and
go, yeah, it prevents DC from being
a state and you'll win.
That's it, problem solved.
So you have no excuse not to
vote for it, okay?
Now guys,
let's go to the heart of the issue.
There's over 700,000 people in DC,
and they don't get to have
representation.
We did the American Revolution
because of taxation
without representation.
>> Yep. >> That is exactly what
happens ironically,
in our nation's capital.
And so it's unconscionable and
there is no logical
argument against it.
That's why Senator Tom Cotton had
to go to deeply racist arguments.
>> Yes, in fact, we have that
deeply racist argument for you.
Just as you watch this,
keep in mind that DC's population
is 46% Black or African American.
So it's an important stat to keep
in mind as you hear the ridiculous
argument that Senator Cotton makes
in this video.
>> Washington doesn't have the size
or diversity of interest of even
the smallest of the 50 states.
Washington also doesn't
have the diversity of interest and
financial independence that Madison
explained were necessary for
a well functioning state.
Yes, Wyoming is smaller
than Washington by population, but
it has three times as many workers
in mining, logging, and
construction, and ten times as many
workers in manufacturing.
In other words,
Wyoming is a well rounded,
working class state.
A new state of Washington would
not be.
>> So he's claiming, first of all,
who cares what type of jobs
the people living in any
particular area hold.
Democracy is supposed to be
democracy and people living in
DC deserve representation.
Also he's just lying to you.
He's pretending as if he cares
about workers, when in reality,
what he's actually concerned about
in terms of DC not being well
rounded enough,
is the fact that nearly half of
the people living there are black.
That's what this is about.
>> Yeah, 100%.
I mean, look at the code words
he used,
they were not very well disguised.
There's not
enough diversity of interest there.
In other words, there's not enough
white people there.
When you talk about diversity,
when it comes to black people,
they say, diversity is terrible,
we don't need diversity.
Tucker Carlson every day talking
about how diversity has hurt this
country not helped this country.
When there's not enough white
people all of a sudden way,
wait, we need diversity.
We need diversity otherwise you
can't be a state, right?
And then there's not
enough financial interest there.
Are you saying there's not enough
bankers to bribe you,
what the hell does that mean?
Okay, there's not enough logging in
mining.
I checked the Constitution, I'm
pretty sure you don't need to have
logging or mining to be a state.
That's an absurd claim.
But my favorite of the racist,
they weren't really dog whistles.
They were human whistles,
we could all hear it,
was when he said it's not a well
rounded working class thing.
You racist piece of crap.
What the hell does that mean?
What there's no people working in
the District of Columbia?
They're not well rounded, how, Tom?
How are they not well rounded?
How are they not working for
a living, Tom?
Now we all know Tom Cotton's
racist, he just declared it.
But I'm here to tell you that
anybody who votes against DC
statehood, they're voting against
it for two reasons.
One, they don't want the Democrats
to have another state where they
would have two senators.
That's obvious.
Let's acknowledge that, right?
So that's I get why the Republican
party doesn't want it.
But Manchin, he's a Democrat.
So theoretically he would want two
more Democratic senators.
Number one he doesn't because he
would lose some leverage.
>> Yes. >> He loves being
kingmaker, right?
But number two more importantly
the only other reason to oppose DC
as a state is I don't want
those hundreds of thousands
of black people voting.
I don't want them represented
in Congress,
because they're not well rounded.
They're not diverse enough.
They're not working class enough.
So if Joe Manchin doesn't mind
the Democrats picking up two seats.
There's only one other reason
he'd be against DC statehood.
because he's a vicious racist, so I
don't care if he cries about that.
It's no, no, I just want to take
away voting rights from hundreds of
thousands of African Americans.
But I will get hurt.
My feelings will get hurt,
not from taking their votes away.
But if you call me a racist for
taking their votes away.
Well, I got bad news for you,
Senator Manchin.
No deal, you're a goddamn racist.
Anyone who votes against DC
statehood, is definitely racist.
Saying those black people should
not have representation.
If by the principles of our
founding fathers, they should
actually do a revolution.
I don't want them to do that.
I want us to do this in the
constitutional and political way.
But when the people in power say
no, I don't want these black
people to be represented, you're
going to have massive problems.
>> Yep.
>> And the least of which is
us explaining to the audience how
racist Joe Manchin is.