So glad John Oliver did this bit last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE
It has always been a point of annoyance that the Territories have this frankly un-American status. My position has always been each one needs to decide to join as a state (or part of a state or something) or go independent but territory status was always supposed to be an expedient. It just seems so counter to our values to have this situation continue of second class citizenship for people in the territories on a permanent basis. I know it doesn't really register on most people's radar, I mean we normally rarely care much about what goes on in neighboring states much less in the territories but maybe John Oliver will make my case better than I can :P
Anyway that is really all I have to say on it.
I think statehood will be quite difficult. Statehood means one of the parties may get two additional precious senate seats, and the other party will try to block it. I also imagine that a lot of the US territories aren't economically viable, and they probably rely on US aid and linkage. So going independent may not be an option.
I grew up in a colony. It is not a big deal. Being a second class citizen with a roof over one's head is much more preferrable to being a first class citizen in a failed state and not having food on the table. Political representation is over-rated.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 16, 2015, 11:35:17 PM
I grew up in a colony. It is not a big deal. Being a second class citizen with a roof over one's head is much more preferrable to being a first class citizen in a failed state and not having food on the table. Political representation is over-rated.
Well it is a big deal to me. The US should not have colonies in the 21st century.
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2015, 11:43:42 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 16, 2015, 11:35:17 PM
I grew up in a colony. It is not a big deal. Being a second class citizen with a roof over one's head is much more preferrable to being a first class citizen in a failed state and not having food on the table. Political representation is over-rated.
Well it is a big deal to me. The US should not have colonies in the 21st century.
What about satellite states?
Quote from: PRC on March 16, 2015, 11:54:41 PM
What about satellite states?
No I don't think satellites should be given statehood. As far as I know they have no permanent inhabitants.
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2015, 11:43:42 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 16, 2015, 11:35:17 PM
I grew up in a colony. It is not a big deal. Being a second class citizen with a roof over one's head is much more preferrable to being a first class citizen in a failed state and not having food on the table. Political representation is over-rated.
Well it is a big deal to me. The US should not have colonies in the 21st century.
Is that the view of the people who actually live in those territories?
What do you have against territories!!!111 :ultra:
Beeb gets all territorial when it comes to Canada.
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2015, 12:35:58 AM
Beeb gets all territorial when it comes to Canada.
I will defend the Yukon Territory till the day I die. -_-
3.9 million of those 4.1 million live in Puerto Rico (and the US Virgin Islands which would probably end up a county of PR if it ever became a state). It's the only one that can become a state.
Perhaps the rest can be given a vote as a part of D.C.? That's how Poland deals with votes from Poles permanently living abroad, for example.
By the way, that was a great piece by John Oliver.
I'm not sure where the outrage should be directed; these territories are territories by choice. The idea that the US has to destroy them to save them seems to me to be a puritan position that ignores the reality that the needs of these territories is better-met by their existing status (even if it was supposed to be temporary) than any alternative available.
The shame is that the District of Columbia continues to exist as it does. Unlike the territories, people there pay US income tax, and yet have no voice in the legislature. A simple retrocession of the inhabited portions of the District to Maryland (much as the portion across the river was retroceded to Virginia) would solve all the problems associated with the peoples' rights, without having to amdend constitutions or upsetting the balance of political power.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 17, 2015, 12:18:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2015, 11:43:42 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 16, 2015, 11:35:17 PM
I grew up in a colony. It is not a big deal. Being a second class citizen with a roof over one's head is much more preferrable to being a first class citizen in a failed state and not having food on the table. Political representation is over-rated.
Well it is a big deal to me. The US should not have colonies in the 21st century.
Is that the view of the people who actually live in those territories?
At various times, Puerto Rico has had votes on whether to apply for statehood, seek independence, or continue commonwealth status. IIRC, the voters have always chosen to continue commonwealth status.
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 06:30:19 AM
At various times, Puerto Rico has had votes on whether to apply for statehood, seek independence, or continue commonwealth status. IIRC, the voters have always chosen to continue commonwealth status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012
QuoteShould Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status?
Yes 46.00%
No 54.00%
Which non-territorial option do you prefer?
Statehood 61.16%
Free Association 33.34%
Independence 5.49%
Puerto Rico should become a US state, yes.
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 06:30:19 AM
At various times, Puerto Rico has had votes on whether to apply for statehood, seek independence, or continue commonwealth status. IIRC, the voters have always chosen to continue commonwealth status.
As Tim linked, not the last time. There are some perverse incentives to remain a territory but I think something should be done.
Even if the smaller inhabited territories (US VI, Guam, American Samoa) cannot become states then they need some other sort of status. Perhaps with no Senators but with one Congressional rep and a corresponding 1 EV POTUS elections. But something like that would require nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment and our political system presently has little ability to do things like that anymore. That would probably be the most rational thing with the three smaller territories though.
Even just putting them in the same territory status has been a non-starter, so fat chance of that sort of thing happening.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2015, 01:33:05 AM
3.9 million of those 4.1 million live in Puerto Rico (and the US Virgin Islands which would probably end up a county of PR if it ever became a state). It's the only one that can become a state.
Not a big deal IMO. US VI would be part of a Puerto Rican state, Guam and American Samoa would join Hawai'i. Naturally with some sort of self-governing status that can be worked out in the states' constitutions.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
As Tim linked, not the last time.
In that vote current status beat statehood 46 to 33.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 07:48:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
As Tim linked, not the last time.
In that vote current status beat statehood 46 to 33.
Current status lost 54 to 46. Statehood did not win though. The perverse incentives to remain a territory are not really the point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 07:48:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
As Tim linked, not the last time.
In that vote current status beat statehood 46 to 33.
How do you figure? More people vote for statehood than voted to keep the current political status.
Quote970,910 (54.00%) voted "No" on the first question, expressing themselves against maintaining the current political status, and 828,077 (46.00%) voted "Yes", to maintain the current political status. Of those who answered on the second question 834,191 (61.11%) chose statehood, 454,768 (33.34%) chose free association, and 74,895 (5.55%) chose independence.[3][4]
Looking at the numbers on the wiki page, it seems the current status voters were allowed to vote on the second question, so statehood did win. However, that included half a million spoiled ballots.
Personally, I'd appreciate a bit more consensus. Considering we're talking about an irrevocable bond which even a unanimous vote in the legislature(see SC 1860) is not allowed to break.
So 500K PRs voted yes to current status and yes to something else. Good work PR.
Of course in my opinion territories was never intended to be a permanent status, it was always supposed to be a transition to something. And having it exist as a permanent status is counter to our basic ideology as a nation.
So my position is they either need to transition to statehood or independence. However, I suppose we might also come up with another status designed to be permanent that provides equal citizenship and representation of some kind but not statehood. But I doubt that would happen, our government is too dysfunctional at the Federal level right now for that kind of dramatic new invention even if there was any sort of demand for that kind of thing.
That is my point rather than 'the people of PR demand statehood/independence and we need to give them what they want' because if that was the case this whole thing would not be an issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 08:18:31 AM
So 500K PRs voted yes to current status and yes to something else.
I don't see why that is so strange. 'If the no vote wins what would you prefer?' seems logical. Probably should have been done in two voting rounds though.
1. 'Should we remain a territory?'
2. 'Ok we are not going to remain a territory, what should we do?'
Though if they really want to be taken seriously by the Congress on that point, as it stands, they probably needed at least 60% no on point one.
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2015, 12:43:15 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2015, 12:35:58 AM
Beeb gets all territorial when it comes to Canada.
I will defend the Yukon Territory till the day I die. -_-
People in the Yukon vote, I think the issue with the American territories is that its inhabitants don't.
Quote from: Josephus on March 17, 2015, 09:04:53 AM
People in the Yukon vote, I think the issue with the American territories is that its inhabitants don't.
Well they do, of course, they just have no vote or representation on the Federal level.
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2015, 06:58:22 AM
Puerto Rico should become a US state, yes.
Nah-- 50 is a nice, even number. Though it would be nice if that resulted in more people realizing PR it is part of the US, so my PR friends on Facebook and stop complaining about it.
:hmm: We could combine the Dakotas into one state?
Or CT and RI.
Probably makes more sense to lump VI into Florida than PR. AS and Guam should go to Hawaii.
Would you prefer to have representation or to not have federal taxation plus the right to reside and work in the US? Territorials have a pretty sweet deal.
You know the worst thing about my beautiful island of Puerto Rico? My fellow Ricans! Fuckers have slowly destroyed their economy, along with everything else. I'm just pissed at the corrupt politicians and weak population that allows to continue to get screwed by said corruption.
And I never complain about it on facebook, hell, I barely even log on to that evil site.
The United States shouldn't have states in the first place. On balance, it's been a disaster.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
The United States shouldn't have states in the first place. It's been a complete fucking disaster.
Leave, go way. Do it, do it now.
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2015, 09:30:43 AM
:hmm: We could combine the Dakotas into one state?
you could probably get away with ceding south dakota's territory to its neighboring states, but North Dakota is far too important to the nation (and world).
re U.S. territories. i don't think the US ever envisioned giving statehood to places like guam. i'd leave them free territories than merge them with other states. the system seems to work fine as is.
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 11:44:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
The United States shouldn't have states in the first place. It's been a complete fucking disaster.
Leave, go way. Do it, do it now.
No.
Well yes. I feel strongly about this and will recite the principles involved but I never convince anybody :P
Only Tim agrees with me. Heh.
Well maybe John Oliver does to, it was just a bit so who knows?
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 11:49:12 AMOnly Tim agrees with me. Heh.
to be fair, i'd argue against representation for mars and moon colonies, too.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 17, 2015, 11:47:54 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:43:39 AMOn balance, it's been a disaster.
how?
The Senate. The EC. Slavery. Civil War. Civil rights. Gerrymandering. Non-uniformity of laws in general, including minimum wage laws. Obamacare.
Some states decriminalized pot, I guess. That was nice.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 17, 2015, 11:50:33 AM
to be fair, i'd argue against representation for mars and moon colonies, too.
Why are you an enemy of the space colonist peoples? :(
Of course, independence was a big mistake in the first place. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but it had some pretty rotten consequences. Like the Senate, the EC, slavery, etc., and also World Wars I and II.
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 11:31:49 AM
You know the worst thing about my beautiful island of Puerto Rico? My fellow Ricans! Fuckers have slowly destroyed their economy, along with everything else. I'm just pissed at the corrupt politicians and weak population that allows to continue to get screwed by said corruption.
Sorry to hear that. Is that why they voted to change status? Thinking maybe it might help this problem?
You are right Valmy.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:51:19 AMThe Senate. The EC. Slavery. Civil War. Civil rights. Gerrymandering. Non-uniformity of laws in general, including minimum wage laws. Obamacare.
Some states decriminalized pot, I guess. That was nice.
slavery ensured the survival of the republic. the civil war matured the union. i think the civil rights movement worked better because the states were allowed to choose before the feds acted. the northern states provided great political support. is gerrymandering actually a problem or is it blown out of proportion? non-uniformity of laws (in some way) is inevitable in a free nation. people have different values. obamacare?
Don't understand how slavery preserved the Republic. Civil War wouldn't have been necessary in a country run directly from DC--whereupon would resistance have nucleated? Civil rights would've been made available far earlier due to left presidencies/legislatures. Gerrymandering is a problem in South Carolina at least. You should see my district. It's idiotic. Non-uniformity of laws is not inevitable in a free nation, it's inevitable in a poorly governed federalist nation. People should all have the same values, and if they don't, it should be enforced upon them anyway by the center; in America, most often the center has been correct. Some states have been recalcitrant against Obamacare.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:48:11 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 11:44:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
The United States shouldn't have states in the first place. It's been a complete fucking disaster.
Leave, go way. Do it, do it now.
No.
Stop whining then, and do your part.
You're being a little goofy Ide.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 11:53:59 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 11:31:49 AM
You know the worst thing about my beautiful island of Puerto Rico? My fellow Ricans! Fuckers have slowly destroyed their economy, along with everything else. I'm just pissed at the corrupt politicians and weak population that allows to continue to get screwed by said corruption.
Sorry to hear that. Is that why they voted to change status? Thinking maybe it might help this problem?
Too complicated a situation to say. I don't know, but it sure is a big part of it I believe.
To avoid upsetting political balance, maybe we should split each of the Dakotas into eastern and western halves, to counterbalance Puerto Rico and DC becoming states. Such deals worked before Civil War.
My understanding is PR's biggest problem is they are drowning in debt. Statehood or independence don't make that problem go away.
Quote from: DGuller on March 17, 2015, 12:16:50 PM
To avoid upsetting political balance, maybe we should split each of the Dakotas into eastern and western halves, to counterbalance Puerto Rico and DC becoming states. Such deals worked before Civil War.
So long as they promise no more Democratic States north of the southern border of Missouri.
political support from the southern colonies to join the revolution/nation. had the founding fathers promised to end slavery, the southern states would (naturally) have refused. had they beat down britain and the new government violated the promise and ended slavery, internal dissent would have either crippled the country or started it off on a bad note. either way, might have resulted in worse consequences down the road. same with your civil war & nucleating resistance comment. we'd have a worse US.
civil rights initially failed on the federal level. removing the state system wouldn't change people from conservative to liberal. you'd still have local governments discriminating. it's hard to say exactly what would have changed with this one, imo.
gerrymandering is a "problem" everywhere, but i don't know how much of a problem it actually is.
new york city will have different local ordinances than fargo, north dakota. it's inevitable. even the federal court circuits are fairly non-uniform, and one of the reasons they exist was to ensure a uniform court system.
no
the US just passed obamacare. it takes time for sweeping changes to settle in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 12:18:13 PM
My understanding is PR's biggest problem is they are drowning in debt. Statehood or independence don't make that problem go away.
But the coffee is real good and the women beautiful, those are a big plus.
Quote from: DGuller on March 17, 2015, 12:16:50 PM
To avoid upsetting political balance, maybe we should split each of the Dakotas into eastern and western halves, to counterbalance Puerto Rico and DC becoming states. Such deals worked before Civil War.
but then oil money would benefit only oil country and not the unaffected rich eastern side of the state. terrible idea.
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 12:28:34 PM
But the coffee is real good and the women beautiful, those are a big plus.
No offense bro, but generally a little more junk in the trunk than I'm happy with.
DGuller may not have been basing his scheme on any actual knowledge of North and South Dakota.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 12:32:57 PM
No offense bro, but generally a little more junk in the trunk than I'm happy with.
:(
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 12:33:28 PM
DGuller may not have been basing his scheme on any actual knowledge of North and South Dakota.
I like the idea of a Northeast Dakota though. :hmm:
Or as they say in England, a little too much loot in the boot. :sleep:
Southwest Dakota is best Dakota.
So basically the only thing Yi could enjoy in Puerto Rico is the coffee and the weather.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 12:32:57 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 12:28:34 PM
But the coffee is real good and the women beautiful, those are a big plus.
No offense bro, but generally a little more junk in the trunk than I'm happy with.
Next time I see I will kick you in the nuts.
Harsh toke.
It varies, really. Some are about right, others are like two large size beach balls.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 12:42:49 PM
It varies, really. Some are about right, others are like two large size beach balls.
Are you referring to Yi's balls?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 12:10:32 PM
Don't understand how slavery preserved the Republic. Civil War wouldn't have been necessary in a country run directly from DC--whereupon would resistance have nucleated? Civil rights would've been made available far earlier due to left presidencies/legislatures. Gerrymandering is a problem in South Carolina at least. You should see my district. It's idiotic. Non-uniformity of laws is not inevitable in a free nation, it's inevitable in a poorly governed federalist nation. People should all have the same values, and if they don't, it should be enforced upon them anyway by the center; in America, most often the center has been correct. Some states have been recalcitrant against Obamacare.
And going back through time, somewhere in 1770-1775, how would you manage to convince the various people in the various 13 colonies + Canada + British territories near the US that it would be better for them to be ruled absolutely from Washington than be ruled absolutely from London? I think most colonies would have opted to stay colonies and keep some measure of local representation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 12:32:57 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 12:28:34 PM
But the coffee is real good and the women beautiful, those are a big plus.
No offense bro, but generally a little more junk in the trunk than I'm happy with.
yes. that fat ass is so ugly...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bouxavenue.com%2FSupplyImages%2F400288_75TQ_0_ST_680x918.jpg&hash=f3ab1cbd6c7639f98f3e25d3b3902566c9a4de67)
:P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 12:13:49 PM
You're being a little goofy Ide.
That's his schtick. He's goofy in a different way that Siege, but they both follow and essential schtick of goofiness and mock-ignorance.
I didn't realize Samoans weren't citizens. That's bullshit.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2015, 01:57:14 PM
I didn't realize Samoans weren't citizens. That's bullshit.
They're still allowed to play football here, so chillax.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2015, 01:57:14 PM
I didn't realize Samoans weren't citizens. That's bullshit.
Each territory has slightly different rules. It is all pretty ridiculous, but again each one was take over by the US in slightly different circumstances with slightly different expedients being used.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2015, 01:57:14 PM
I didn't realize Samoans weren't citizens. That's bullshit.
They're still allowed to play football here, so chillax.
We owe it to Troy Polamalu!
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 02:07:55 PM
We owe it to Troy Polamalu!
No way. We owe it to Jack Thompson, the Throwin' Samoan :contract:
I have a bunch of his autographs somewhere.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 17, 2015, 01:57:14 PM
I didn't realize Samoans weren't citizens. That's bullshit.
They are US Nationals, so get all the benefits. They just aren't citizens, so can't vote or run for office. They are, essentially, permanent resident aliens with extra benefits.
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 12:13:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:48:11 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 11:44:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
The United States shouldn't have states in the first place. It's been a complete fucking disaster.
Leave, go way. Do it, do it now.
No.
Stop whining then, and do your part.
To pass a constitutional amendment to abolish state sovereignty? I'm doing 100% that I possibly could.
I'm canceling out Ide's effort.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 05:48:10 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 12:13:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:48:11 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 17, 2015, 11:44:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
The United States shouldn't have states in the first place. It's been a complete fucking disaster.
Leave, go way. Do it, do it now.
No.
Stop whining then, and do your part.
To pass a constitutional amendment to abolish state sovereignty? I'm doing 100% that I possibly could.
I meant doing your part to make your country better.
He's eating his body weight in peanut butter cups.