Starting this up to keep from derailing the election thread, but I thought of something. Does anybody know if a ballot initiative in PR needs a quorum or a simple majority to pass? As it stands right now, it sounds like PR might finally be approaching Congress about statehood.
Both Obama and Mittens promised to back Puerto Rico if they voted Statehood:
http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Puerto-Rico-votes-on-US-ties-and-chooses-governor-4012422.php
QuoteBoth President Barack Obama and rival Mitt Romney said they supported the referendum, with Obama pledging to respect the will of the people if there was a clear majority. Any change would require approval by the U.S. Congress.
So this will probably happen, if the vote holds up. A 'clear majority' is needed. So probably 55%+ for Statehood.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2012, 12:16:42 AM
So this will probably happen, if the vote holds up. A 'clear majority' is needed. So probably 55%+ for Statehood.
So basically, it's still in toss-up territory. It's hovering right at 54% with about 2/3 of the polling stations reporting.
87.77% in
Question 1 - Should we keep our current status?
NO 832,625 53.88%
YES 712,769 46.12%
Question 2 - If No, what should we do?
STATEHOOD 722,336 61.69%
SOVEREIGN FREE ASSOCIATED STATE 386,028 32.97%
INDEPENDENCE 62,584 5.34%
The Chinese would never allow Puerto Rico to declare its independence anyway.
How many years have they been putting it off now? I think the PR statehood issue has been completely finished aside from a popular vote on it for like 60 years at least.
Don't really like that two-part format, statehood didn't get a majority of actual ballots cast. There will probably have to be another plebiscite with yes/no to statehood option.
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
Quote from: 11B4V on November 07, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
Lovely latino women.
Unfortunately, 66% of the Puerto Rican population is obese or overweight. :x
I'd rather see us drop our outdated, Cold War-era restrictions with Cuba than add Puerto Rico to the union.
I hear the Cuban nightlife is to die for. Johnny Olaf told me that.
Cuba would be a great spring break destination for college kids.
Send our drones and annex Cuba.
The Anti-Statehood candidate seems to have barely won as governor, though. With that and a republican house, can this really be expected to occur?
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 07, 2012, 04:00:58 AM
The Anti-Statehood candidate seems to have barely won as governor, though. With that and a republican house, can this really be expected to occur?
He has to follow the dictate of the referendum.
Puerto Rican statehood is in the GOP party platform.
Where is website to follow updated results?
Quote from: Phillip V on November 07, 2012, 04:59:11 AM
Where is website to follow updated results?
NO
http://div1.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/CONDICION_POLITICA_TERRITORIAL_ACTUAL_ISLA.xml
Statehood
http://div1.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml
So does this election actually mean anything?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 05:06:15 AM
So does this election actually mean anything?
It means the government of Puerto Rico has to apply for statehood, new governor notwithstanding. Congress will have to vote yes or no.
Will your pals in the GOP go for it?
I don't remember any Puerto Ricans in that Samuel L. Jackson film...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 05:07:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 05:06:15 AM
So does this election actually mean anything?
It means the government of Puerto Rico has to apply for statehood, new governor notwithstanding. Congress will have to vote yes or no.
How long is the process?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 05:10:20 AM
Will your pals in the GOP go for it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico#2012_Platforms''
QuoteRepublican Party 2012 Platform
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.[
Quote from: 11B4V on November 07, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
2 reliably democratic senators, 6 reliably democratic congressmen and 8 reliable democratic electoral votes. I expect the republicans to vote against, or at least filibuster.
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:12:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 07, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
2 reliably democratic senators, 6 reliably democratic congressmen and 8 reliable democratic electoral votes. I expect the republicans to vote against, or at least filibuster.
Seems not to have precedent. I would think that denying statehood would be a headline-grabbing douche move. How many Americans want to deny statehood to Puerto Rico?
The problem is that PR is tainted. :(
Quote from: Phillip V on November 07, 2012, 06:16:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:12:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 07, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
2 reliably democratic senators, 6 reliably democratic congressmen and 8 reliable democratic electoral votes. I expect the republicans to vote against, or at least filibuster.
Seems not to have precedent. I would think that denying statehood would be a headline-grabbing douche move. How many Americans want to deny statehood to Puerto Rico?
To quote Mitch McConnell
Quote<his> "top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office."
so, yes, a douche move. They'll try to avoid getting blamed for it, but still, they'll try to stop it.
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:12:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 07, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
2 reliably democratic senators, 6 reliably democratic congressmen and 8 reliable democratic electoral votes. I expect the republicans to vote against, or at least filibuster.
The Republican party doesn't believe that though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 06:35:04 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:12:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 07, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
2 reliably democratic senators, 6 reliably democratic congressmen and 8 reliable democratic electoral votes. I expect the republicans to vote against, or at least filibuster.
The Republican party doesn't believe that though.
Well, they need to stop being the party of deporting latinos first though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 06:35:04 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:12:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 07, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
2 reliably democratic senators, 6 reliably democratic congressmen and 8 reliable democratic electoral votes. I expect the republicans to vote against, or at least filibuster.
The Republican party doesn't believe that though.
:lol: You really believe that don't you? Poor, Poor Tim. At the very least they'll try to put it off as long as possible. They don't want to see another state join the Union under Obama's watch. Fucks up their incompetent narrative. They sure as hell aren't interested in putting themselves further behind in Congress, and lets face it. Lots of Republicans hate latinos. Hell, they probably see the Ricans as illegal immigrants. Also it'll fuck up their "English as the only language" bullshit.
It's funny though, since latinos are a comparatively conservative constituency (big on family values and religion), yet they consistently alienate it.
Your colonies are growing up. :)
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 07:15:20 AM
It's funny though, since latinos are a comparatively conservative constituency (big on family values and religion), yet they consistently alienate it.
It's so true; no minority is more custom-catered to becoming a conservative bulwark than Latinos, with their religious and family value systems. Dubya saw it, Jeb Bush sees it, so does Rick Perry.
But, when when a substantial number of people in a political party want to kick you out of the country or make sure you serve time for being here, it's sorta hard to get on board.
50,000 Latinos turn 18 in America every month. That's a lot of votes thrown away.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 07:09:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 06:35:04 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:12:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 07, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
What do the Ricans have to offer us??
2 reliably democratic senators, 6 reliably democratic congressmen and 8 reliable democratic electoral votes. I expect the republicans to vote against, or at least filibuster.
The Republican party doesn't believe that though.
:lol: You really believe that don't you? Poor, Poor Tim. At the very least they'll try to put it off as long as possible. They don't want to see another state join the Union under Obama's watch. Fucks up their incompetent narrative. They sure as hell aren't interested in putting themselves further behind in Congress, and lets face it. Lots of Republicans hate latinos. Hell, they probably see the Ricans as illegal immigrants. Also it'll fuck up their "English as the only language" bullshit.
Well I find it odd they'd put it in their party platform and then not be sincere. After all Republic platforms don't generally tend to shy away from what they want even if it doesn't play well.
I do not. There's all sorts of stuff on the party platform. Something might get added to the party platform in 1972, and still be on there even if Republicans don't believe in it. Take a look at the Republican party platform sometimes, there's all kinds of crazy shit in there. Gold standard, foreign fertilizer, opposition to "UN taxes", whatever. I doubt they take half of it seriously.
I wait to see what happens with this.
This election does not look like a clear majority to me. But I guess it is up to Puerto Ricans to decide if this is good enough. On the other hand virtually none of them seem to favor independence and in my view those are the only two options.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 07:38:37 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 07:15:20 AM
It's funny though, since latinos are a comparatively conservative constituency (big on family values and religion), yet they consistently alienate it.
It's so true; no minority is more custom-catered to becoming a conservative bulwark than Latinos, with their religious and family value systems. Dubya saw it, Jeb Bush sees it, so does Rick Perry.
But, when when a substantial number of people in a political party want to kick you out of the country or make sure you serve time for being here, it's sorta hard to get on board.
50,000 Latinos turn 18 in America every month. That's a lot of votes thrown away.
:yes:
One of the keys to Harper getting a Conservative majority at last has been a steady courting of the immigrant vote. We don't have a lot of latinos in Canada, but we have a substantial number of south and east asians. Values like support for family and the value of hard work play really well in those communities once you drop opposition to immigration as a platform.
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
Sounds like Alabama or Mississippi then.
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
It's GDP PPP is equal to the Czech Republic ($27k), not as bad as you'd think.
Who gives a fuck about the English?
We should have kept Cuba and the Philippines and made them states to.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
It's GDP PPP is equal to the Czech Republic ($27k), not as bad as you'd think.
Who gives a fuck about the English?
We should have kept Cuba and the Philippines and made them states to.
And the Phillippines GDP is $4100 per capita. Plus, you know, they fought a massive insurgency because they didn't want to be a US colony.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
It's GDP PPP is equal to the Czech Republic ($27k), not as bad as you'd think.
Who gives a fuck about the English?
We should have kept Cuba and the Philippines and made them states to.
Well, they preferred to belong to third world shitholes that can't get them visas to first world countries and routinely risk death or enslavement to get out of those countries.
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2012, 12:18:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
It's GDP PPP is equal to the Czech Republic ($27k), not as bad as you'd think.
Who gives a fuck about the English?
We should have kept Cuba and the Philippines and made them states to.
And the Phillippines GDP is $4100 per capita. Plus, you know, they fought a massive insurgency because they didn't want to be a US colony.
And we crushed it. There's no way the Philippine GDP would be that low (and correspondingly their population that high) if it was ruled by the US for a hundred years.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:21:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2012, 12:18:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
It's GDP PPP is equal to the Czech Republic ($27k), not as bad as you'd think.
Who gives a fuck about the English?
We should have kept Cuba and the Philippines and made them states to.
And the Phillippines GDP is $4100 per capita. Plus, you know, they fought a massive insurgency because they didn't want to be a US colony.
And we crushed it. There's no way the Philippine GDP would be that low (and correspondingly their population that high) if it was ruled by the US for a hundred years.
:bleeding:
If the GOP blocks Puerto Rican statehood, it will kill the GOP. That would guarantee no Latino will vote for the Republican Party again.
I'm just trying to figure out how binding this is. Does this mean their guy in DC has to introduce a statehood application, or does it mean he can introduce a statehood application? Does this result in a mandate or an option?
Each state's admission is unique and sui generis. However, the process is basically that the legally convened government of the territory seeking statehood sets a local process for petitioning statehood, and if the locals want statehood, the local government must have a constitution guaranteeing a republican form of government. Then, Congress essentially passes a bill making it a state, and the President signs it into law.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:21:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2012, 12:18:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
It's GDP PPP is equal to the Czech Republic ($27k), not as bad as you'd think.
Who gives a fuck about the English?
We should have kept Cuba and the Philippines and made them states to.
And the Phillippines GDP is $4100 per capita. Plus, you know, they fought a massive insurgency because they didn't want to be a US colony.
And we crushed it. There's no way the Philippine GDP would be that low (and correspondingly their population that high) if it was ruled by the US for a hundred years.
And the act of crushing the insurgency convinced the us that it didn't want to be an imperial power. PR never bothered to revolt or demand independence.
I'm not sure it's safe to assume that other latinos give a shit about Puerto Rican statehood. If it became a really contentious debate about dirty hispanics, then maybe
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 01:05:31 PM
I'm not sure it's safe to assume that other latinos give a shit about Puerto Rican statehood. If it became a really contentious debate about dirty hispanics, then maybe
That's true. I could actually see it having an adverse effect on Cuban-origin population, which already tends to skew right.
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 01:05:31 PM
I'm not sure it's safe to assume that other latinos give a shit about Puerto Rican statehood. If it became a really contentious debate about dirty hispanics, then maybe
They will if they think that the reasons the republicans oppose PR statehood because the puerto ricans are latinos.
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 01:05:31 PM
I'm not sure it's safe to assume that other latinos give a shit about Puerto Rican statehood. If it became a really contentious debate about dirty hispanics, then maybe
I have proudly used Dirty Rican as a name for games before. :)
Typed with my fat fingers on a small stupid phone.
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 01:11:20 PM
They will if they think that the reasons the republicans oppose PR statehood because the puerto ricans are latinos.
This. A rejection of PR statehood would be hard to spin as not anti-Latino.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2012, 01:57:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 01:11:20 PM
They will if they think that the reasons the republicans oppose PR statehood because the puerto ricans are latinos.
This. A rejection of PR statehood would be hard to spin as not anti-Latino.
I'll take care of it for them: "We don't want to fuck the stars on the flag up. Sorry." :P
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 07, 2012, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2012, 01:57:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 01:11:20 PM
They will if they think that the reasons the republicans oppose PR statehood because the puerto ricans are latinos.
This. A rejection of PR statehood would be hard to spin as not anti-Latino.
I'll take care of it for them: "We don't want to fuck the stars on the flag up. Sorry." :P
Surprisingly easy to work out. 51 = 17x3, so alternating 3 rows of 8 with 3 rows of 9 works smoothly.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2010/06/13_stripes_and_51_stars.html
And a widget to generate more options:
http://img.slate.com/media/19/flag.swf
They'd also have to change the words to "Fifty Nifty United States" :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2012, 05:06:18 PM
They'd also have to change the words to "Fifty Nifty United States" :(
Also for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_r_68x1AQc
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
agree with Peter: doesn't make sense to set it up so that you apply for statehood without an actual majority of people wanting statehood.
Also, Puerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
It's GDP PPP is equal to the Czech Republic ($27k), not as bad as you'd think.
Who gives a fuck about the English?
We should have kept Cuba and the Philippines and made them states to.
I agree with Cuba, but that needed to be done soon after the Spanish-American War.
The Phillipines?
Timmay likes the flip ladyboys.
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 01:11:20 PM
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 01:05:31 PM
I'm not sure it's safe to assume that other latinos give a shit about Puerto Rican statehood. If it became a really contentious debate about dirty hispanics, then maybe
They will if they think that the reasons the republicans oppose PR statehood because the puerto ricans are latinos.
I think it would be hilarious if Congressional
Democrats follow Count's lead and oppose Puerto Rican statehood, especially if they just use the same reasons up-front:
QuotePuerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
Is there any real reason to deny PR statehood given the current relationship in place?
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 06:13:00 PM
Is there any real reason to deny PR statehood given the current relationship in place?
Well, unless it's clear that the majority there would prefer the current relationship to statehood, on a philosophical level, no. Actually, on a philosophical level, the argument can be made that the current relationship isn't proper, and they should be forced to choose either statehood or independence (same for American Somoa, Guam, etc.).
On a practical level, the poverty of the island relative to the rest of the US is a cause for concern, but I don't think it's a valid reason to deny them statehood if they want it.
My prediction:
Democrats will endorse the idea of PR statehood wholeheartedly (7 new Dems in Congress!).
Republicans will play lip-service to the idea, but stall/block...as in, put on lots of conditions, probably demand a clearer referendum, require preconditions...maybe even be all EU-like and say "your economy has to be like this before you get in". Or just say "we have more important business right now...'Merica!".
Wouldn't this mean that American gains yet another timezone ?
Atlantic time ?
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2012, 05:08:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2012, 05:06:18 PM
They'd also have to change the words to "Fifty Nifty United States" :(
Also for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_r_68x1AQc
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUDDaEOvuY
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 06:13:00 PM
Is there any real reason to deny PR statehood given the current relationship in place?
Well, unless it's clear that the majority there would prefer the current relationship to statehood, on a philosophical level, no. Actually, on a philosophical level, the argument can be made that the current relationship isn't proper, and they should be forced to choose either statehood or independence (same for American Somoa, Guam, etc.).
On a practical level, the poverty of the island relative to the rest of the US is a cause for concern, but I don't think it's a valid reason to deny them statehood if they want it.
Yeah, that's what I mean. The current situation needs to be resolved one way or another and if indeed such a majority in PR arises (it's still a bit unclear from that vote) I can't see how they could be denied.
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 07:55:41 PM
The current situation needs to be resolved one way or another
What's wrong with it if that's what the people there want? Not rhetorical; I'm seriously asking for your views on the question.
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 09:00:11 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 07:55:41 PM
The current situation needs to be resolved one way or another
What's wrong with it if that's what the people there want? Not rhetorical; I'm seriously asking for your views on the question.
Well I'm Spanish, not Puertorrican, so I can't speak for them. I just think political impasses or perennially temporal arrangements are bad; one has to have a good idea of the long term political arrangement within a society in order to foster legal certainty and growth. So I think it would be for the good of Puerto Rico if people knew where they will stand 10 years from now instead of tip-toeing around the issue every five years or so.
Also, if they do make PR a state, they just go ahead and toss the US Virgin Islands territory into it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 03:27:59 AM
I'd rather see us drop our outdated, Cold War-era restrictions with Cuba than add Puerto Rico to the union.
I hear the Cuban nightlife is to die for. Johnny Olaf told me that.
I stand by my earlier statement.
And you fuckers, I toss you a Godfather reference, and you disrespect it like Moe Greene slapping Fredo for banging cocktail waitresses two at a time.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 07, 2012, 12:37:00 PM
I'm just trying to figure out how binding this is. Does this mean their guy in DC has to introduce a statehood application, or does it mean he can introduce a statehood application? Does this result in a mandate or an option?
Their guy in Washington is a pro statehood democrat who was reelected. So, he will introduce it.
It would be ironic if the thing that pushed the USA into bankruptcy was the cost of adding that extra star to everything. :D
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 01:11:20 PM
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 01:05:31 PM
I'm not sure it's safe to assume that other latinos give a shit about Puerto Rican statehood. If it became a really contentious debate about dirty hispanics, then maybe
They will if they think that the reasons the republicans oppose PR statehood because the puerto ricans are latinos.
I think it would be hilarious if Congressional Democrats follow Count's lead and oppose Puerto Rican statehood, especially if they just use the same reasons up-front:QuotePuerto Rico probably shouldn't be a state. It's way poorer than the rest of the country and most people don't speak English.
I assume Congressional Dems would support statehood- two free senators is nice. But the poverty and language / cultural difference seem like real enough reasons to me. There's a difference between supporting immigration and wanting to have a state that primarily speaks Spanish, has a distinct culture from the rest of the country, and is much poorer (Tim's stat is nice but the territory derives 20% of its income from federal transfer payments).
Maybe it'll work out, and if Puerto Ricans are definitely for it (which I don't think the weird two part vote demonstrates) then maybe it has to happen, but I think there are real reasons for concern.
http://cronkite.asu.edu/buffett/puertorico/economy.html
Well, it's not like I-95 would be extended to go through it. It's statehood wouldn't be any more of an impact (other than economically) than its current status now: a tourist destination.
Besides, it's an island where most of the inhabitants are too shit poor to get off of anyway. If only we'd be so lucky and Mississippi was stuck in the middle of the water, too.
I never would have thought Count would be on the side of "they need to speak English." Ah, tolerance, it only runs so deep.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 11:01:36 PM
I never would have thought Count would be on the side of "they need to speak English." Ah, tolerance, it only runs so deep.
I'm a big fan of immigration, and obviously Puerto Ricans are already citizens and can move around and vote when they're living in a state and do other citizen-y things. I just don't know if a Quebec On The Sea is a great idea. PR is great and all but it's really different from the rest of the country.
Yeah sorry but you're going to need to drop your Dem card in the box. :(
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 11:23:12 PM
Yeah sorry but you're going to need to drop your Dem card in the box. :(
:lol: And the other one that's printed en Español.
hablo como bloomberg: poorly
I should reiterate that if there's a clear majority in PR for statehood then they should become a state, because they're already American and self determination is great (unless it's Filipinos who don't realize how great they would have been under 100 years of American rule ;)).
So in a few posts you went from "maybe it has to happen if they want but I've concerns" to "if they want to well then by all means"?
Shame though; there really is no way this Congress would allow a 51st state, Latino or otherwise.
Hell, they had kittens over a Veterans Jobs Bill that would cost $1B and killed it without an equal reduction in spending elsewhere; they'd never allow the admission of another state that would entitle it to who knows how many billions in guaranteed government funds, for everything from infrastructure to education.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 12:03:37 AM
So in a few posts you went from "maybe it has to happen if they want but I've concerns" to "if they want to well then by all means"?
yeah, i couldn't think of reasons good enough to justify denying statehood if that's what most PRicans want. But if we're just discussing it from the standpoint of the rest of the country then I think concerns are warranted.
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
One of the keys to Harper getting a Conservative majority at last has been a steady courting of the immigrant vote. We don't have a lot of latinos in Canada, but we have a substantial number of south and east asians. Values like support for family and the value of hard work play really well in those communities once you drop opposition to immigration as a platform.
Language matters too, there was an interesting example over here. The Tories had some really interesting polling done on ethnic minority views of the Tories. It was surprising how many people cited comments from Enoch Powell in the 60s ('rivers of blood'), or Thatcher in the 80s ('flooding in'). They also mentioned Cameron's recent speech, taking a hint from Merkel, when he said that 'state multiculturalism has failed'.
They asked some more and it turns out that ethnic minority voters basically hear 'multiculturalism' as 'multiracial'. So the message Cameron was pushing was one about moral relativism and all that stuff. But a significant number of people in ethnic minorities basically hear a moan about Britain not being white and Anglo-Saxon.
Quote from: Count on November 07, 2012, 10:28:16 PM
Maybe it'll work out, and if Puerto Ricans are definitely for it (which I don't think the weird two part vote demonstrates) then maybe it has to happen, but I think there are real reasons for concern.
http://cronkite.asu.edu/buffett/puertorico/economy.html
Yeah, the vote was stupid. There needs to be another, straight statehood-yey or ney, poll.
From what congress people have said in the past, any federally organized referendum will be at best the same as question 2 (statehood, FSA, Independence) or even more stark (Join us or GTFO!).
No status quo option available.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Who gives a fuck about the English?
Not you, that's for sure :P
I would speculate that being able to speak the official language of the country you want to be a citizen of is kind of important.
Besides, you are hardly unbiased :P
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2012, 04:36:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Who gives a fuck about the English?
Not you, that's for sure :P
I would speculate that being able to speak the official language of the country you want to be a citizen of is kind of important.
Besides, you are hardly unbiased :P
There is no official language. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2012, 05:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2012, 04:36:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Who gives a fuck about the English?
Not you, that's for sure :P
I would speculate that being able to speak the official language of the country you want to be a citizen of is kind of important.
Besides, you are hardly unbiased :P
There is no official language. :contract:
huh? So if I go to sightseeing to, say, Baltimore, and I got some business to take care of with a state office or something, they have to find a way to deal with me in Hungarian?
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2012, 05:24:11 AM
huh? So if I go to sightseeing to, say, Baltimore, and I got some business to take care of with a state office or something, they have to find a way to deal with me in Hungarian?
Yes. Now, it may have to be over the telephone, but it's not that difficult.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 01:06:13 AM
But a significant number of people in ethnic minorities basically hear a moan about Britain not being white and Anglo-Saxon.
That would be a strange moan. It is like 90+% White. Of course alot of those are of superior Norman heritage.
Why do guys keep saying we ricans talk spanish? We don't speak español or inglés, we speak spanglish. :smarty:
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 08, 2012, 09:14:12 AM
Why do guys keep saying we ricans talk spanish? We don't speak español or inglés, we speak spanglish. :smarty:
One thing I love about Tejanos is they will just randomly switch between Spanish and English when talking to each other. Sometimes mid-sentence. I am sure they do it mid-word as well sometimes.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2012, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 08, 2012, 09:14:12 AM
Why do guys keep saying we ricans talk spanish? We don't speak español or inglés, we speak spanglish. :smarty:
One thing I love about Tejanos is they will just randomly switch between Spanish and English when talking to each other. Sometimes mid-sentence. I am sure they do it mid-word as well sometimes.
:yes:
It's fun to watch my nieces' and nephews' post on FB. They don't even realize that they're doing that, which makes it all the more funny to me.
English is like a virus. When I was over there I would often switch languages midsentence when talking to my Spanish speaking friends. It just comes.
To be frank, most of the time it requires less work to say something in English than it does in Spanish. Latin languages are too fancy.
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2012, 09:55:07 AM
English is like a virus. When I was over there I would often switch languages midsentence when talking to my Spanish speaking friends. It just comes.
To be frank, most of the time it requires less work to say something in English than it does in Spanish. Latin languages are too fancy.
By the way, who are you? How did you get here? etc
Quote from: Count on November 08, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2012, 09:55:07 AM
English is like a virus. When I was over there I would often switch languages midsentence when talking to my Spanish speaking friends. It just comes.
To be frank, most of the time it requires less work to say something in English than it does in Spanish. Latin languages are too fancy.
By the way, who are you? How did you get here? etc
Aw, honey. You've been away too long. :hug:
Quote from: Count on November 08, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2012, 09:55:07 AM
English is like a virus. When I was over there I would often switch languages midsentence when talking to my Spanish speaking friends. It just comes.
To be frank, most of the time it requires less work to say something in English than it does in Spanish. Latin languages are too fancy.
By the way, who are you? How did you get here? etc
I used to post in the Paradox OT loooong time ago, even had an account in Languish when it first started. Nostalgia takes over you as you grow old, I suppose; talking to Larchie I remembered this place and here I am
Quote from: Count on November 08, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
By the way, who are you? How did you get here? etc
Is that any way to greet him?
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2012, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: Count on November 08, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2012, 09:55:07 AM
English is like a virus. When I was over there I would often switch languages midsentence when talking to my Spanish speaking friends. It just comes.
To be frank, most of the time it requires less work to say something in English than it does in Spanish. Latin languages are too fancy.
By the way, who are you? How did you get here? etc
I used to post in the Paradox OT loooong time ago, even had an account in Languish when it first started. Nostalgia takes over you as you grow old, I suppose; talking to Larchie I remembered this place and here I am
Cheers.
You know what ruins Puerto Rico? Too many damn Puertoricans. <_<
And those thinking culture or lifestyle is very different from any other state, you are wrong. And the language? No problem, there are people living in Miami for 50 years that have never had to learn english, there is no need.
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 08, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
You know what ruins Puerto Rico? Too many damn Puertoricans. <_<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6wo2wpT2k
I can't watch youtube from work, and too lazy to get my phone out of my pocket.
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 08, 2012, 01:57:28 PM
I can't watch youtube from work, and too lazy to get my phone out of my pocket.
:lol:
YOu really are from Puerto Rico, aren't you. :D
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 08, 2012, 01:57:28 PM
I can't watch youtube from work, and too lazy to get my phone out of my pocket.
:lol:
YOu really are from Puerto Rico, aren't you. :D
Glad someone caught it. :D
If we lived in a sane world that wasn't driven by identity politics, I think the US would be forcing Puerto Rico to become a state with Puerto Rico resisting. It is crazy they get an income tax exclusion and are contemplating giving it up.
One of my favorite moments from the republican primary was when Santorum thought he could win Puerto Rico with a platform for them to become a state but learn english first.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
If we lived in a sane world that wasn't driven by identity politics, I think the US would be forcing Puerto Rico to become a state with Puerto Rico resisting. It is crazy they get an income tax exclusion and are contemplating giving it up.
I don't see how the 2nd follows the other?
You act like they would be given up their exemption for nothing. 2 Senators, 5 House Reps, Presidential voting, and increased federal benefits and investment is more than worth it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2012, 07:39:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
If we lived in a sane world that wasn't driven by identity politics, I think the US would be forcing Puerto Rico to become a state with Puerto Rico resisting. It is crazy they get an income tax exclusion and are contemplating giving it up.
I don't see how the 2nd follows the other?
You act like they would be given up their exemption for nothing. 2 Senators, 5 House Reps, Presidential voting, and increased federal benefits and investment is more than worth it.
My ability to vote for a house member, president, and senate is certainly not worth being subject to income taxes--I would think most people who pay or will pay income taxes feel that way.
They already get lots of federal benefits, and many companies have set up operations there because it allows them to remain in the US but still have the associated tax breaks with Puerto Rico.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
One of my favorite moments from the republican primary was when Santorum thought he could win Puerto Rico with a platform for them to become a state but learn english first.
Subsequently followed by House Republicans introducing another English Unity Act, endearing them to latin voters just a few months before a presidential election.
Who runs that party?
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2012, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
One of my favorite moments from the republican primary was when Santorum thought he could win Puerto Rico with a platform for them to become a state but learn english first.
Subsequently followed by House Republicans introducing another English Unity Act, endearing them to latin voters just a few months before a presidential election.
Who runs that party?
Koch, Adelson, Fries, Nordqvist, Ailes and Armey :contract:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2012, 07:39:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
If we lived in a sane world that wasn't driven by identity politics, I think the US would be forcing Puerto Rico to become a state with Puerto Rico resisting. It is crazy they get an income tax exclusion and are contemplating giving it up.
I don't see how the 2nd follows the other?
You act like they would be given up their exemption for nothing. 2 Senators, 5 House Reps, Presidential voting, and increased federal benefits and investment is more than worth it.
My ability to vote for a house member, president, and senate is certainly not worth being subject to income taxes--I would think most people who pay or will pay income taxes feel that way.
I think that is a literally lunatic proposition. I doubt even most Libertarians feel that way. Your statement flies in the face of American history and common sense.
The ability to vote was what the revolution was about, not taxes. As soon as we won we had no problem with being taxed by our representatives. The income tax was a popular reform that was instituted via a constitutional amendment.
Regarding taxes, Puerto Rico also has to levy extra income tax to make up for some of the entitlements that aren't fully covered by the federal government, so overall taxation wouldn't rise as much as one would expect once the feds took care.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
I think that is a literally lunatic proposition. I doubt even most Libertarians feel that way. Your statement flies in the face of American history and common sense.
The ability to vote was what the revolution was about, not taxes. As soon as we won we had no problem with being taxed by our representatives. The income tax was a popular reform that was instituted via a constitutional amendment.
Christ Tim, 40% or so of people don't vote now when it is free. You really expect there would be good turnout of people had to pay 25% of their income for the chance?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 08:22:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
I think that is a literally lunatic proposition. I doubt even most Libertarians feel that way. Your statement flies in the face of American history and common sense.
The ability to vote was what the revolution was about, not taxes. As soon as we won we had no problem with being taxed by our representatives. The income tax was a popular reform that was instituted via a constitutional amendment.
Christ Tim, 40% or so of people don't vote now when it is free. You really expect there would be good turnout of people had to pay 25% of their income for the chance?
I don't consider voting free. All the burdens of citizenship, including taxation come with it.
Anyways, congress is full of asshats who don't understand democracy. If people chose not to vote for one of three options, they should not be able to cry and put the kibosh on the outcome just because their favorite option wasn't on the ballot.
I should note, in that 2010 vote that was 223-169, there were 39 Republicans who voted yes.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/266799-congress-expected-to-ignore-puerto-ricos-statehood-vote (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/266799-congress-expected-to-ignore-puerto-ricos-statehood-vote)
Quote
Congress expected to ignore Puerto Rico's vote for statehood
By Pete Kasperowicz - 11/08/12 09:16 AM ET
Congress is likely to respond to Puerto Rico's vote in favor of statehood with stony silence, and is not expected to undertake any effort to make Puerto Rico the 51st state.
Puerto Rico's vote to seek statehood with the United States seems historic on its face, since the island territory had never formally approved such a referendum. But congressional staffers said the numbers behind the vote, plus the related political circumstances under which it occurred, mean few in Congress are expected to see any pressing need to pass legislation related to the island's status.
On the numbers, Puerto Ricans voted 922,374-786,749 against the status quo of the island being a U.S. territory. With that hurdle cleared, 61 percent of voters chose statehood in a second question, and 39 percent picked other options.
But the ballot did not include other non-statehood options, and hundreds of thousands of voters left blank their preferred choice. CNN reported this week that this flaw in the vote could mean that the option of statehood might still garner less than 50 percent of the vote, and could be near the 46 to 48 percent level of support that has been seen in past votes.
Republican and Democratic staffers in the House told The Hill this week that they are fully aware of these details, which is why the vote is not being seen in Congress as reason to start considering legislation for Puerto Rico's statehood. One House aide said the 61 percent vote in favor of statehood is seem by some in Congress as a "statistical fiction."
The political circumstances surrounding the vote are also being seen as real hurdles to making the island a U.S. state. Most importantly, Puerto Rican voters also decided to oust Republican Gov. Luis Fortuno, a strong supporter of statehood.
Fortuno was beaten by Alejandro Garcia Padilla, who wants Puerto Rico to remain a U.S. territory. This means that while Puerto Rico's non-voting Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi (D) will continue to push for statehood in the U.S. Congress, the effort is unlikely to go anywhere.
"The new government doesn't support statehood," one House aide said flatly, speaking of the new governor.
Pierluisi, who won reelection on Tuesday, told reporters this week that the statehood referendum means the U.S. Congress will "have to react." But his office did not respond to a request for comment about whether Pierluisi effectively lost his mandate to keep pursuing statehood when Garcia was elected.
Another House aide said some in Congress see the mandate for statehood as being significantly weakened because some believe it was only raised in an effort by Fortuno to draw more voters into the voting booths to help save his own reelection. This aide said that perception hurts Puerto Rico's case, since it makes the vote look like an attempt to engineer the outcome of the governor's race, rather than a sincere attempt to seek statehood.
"As a strategy, it failed miserably," this aide added, given that Fortuno lost his race anyway.
Puerto Rico faces other hurdles within the United States. Statehood for the island is an issue that Republicans tend to oppose, which makes it highly unlikely that House Republicans would advance the issue even if Puerto Rico were making a genuine push for this change.
The House voted 223-169 in favor of statehood in 2010, but that vote was held when Democrats controlled the chamber.
It's also unclear whether the Obama administration sees Puerto Rico's vote as an action-forcing event. The Obama administration assembled a task force on Puerto Rico's status, which released a report in 2010 that outlined several status options the island might pursue.
But the administration did not respond to a request for comment on how it sees the vote. The State Department, which participated in the task-force report, deferred questions to the White House.
Over the summer, the Democrats' 2012 political platform said Puerto Rico needs to decide for itself what change in status it should seek in relation to the United States. But it also said that if the Nov. 6 vote does not resolve the issue, the U.S. should set out a clear set of options for the island.
As of this week, at least, it's unclear whether the administration sees the Nov. 6 vote as providing clarity, or muddling the question even further.
To be honest, the structure of the vote makes it a poor way to provide a good majority. As said, it seems that statehood will garner less than 48%, and you can't push a momentous decision like that with just a plurality.
What PR should do is to make a clear-cut statehood vote: do you want to become an US state? Y/N
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2012, 06:46:49 AM
Anyways, congress is full of asshats who don't understand democracy. If people chose not to vote for one of three options, they should not be able to cry and put the kibosh on the outcome just because their favorite option wasn't on the ballot.
Yeah, clearly the democratic thing is to bundle the people who want statehood and the people who want independence together to create a majority.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2012, 07:39:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
If we lived in a sane world that wasn't driven by identity politics, I think the US would be forcing Puerto Rico to become a state with Puerto Rico resisting. It is crazy they get an income tax exclusion and are contemplating giving it up.
I don't see how the 2nd follows the other?
You act like they would be given up their exemption for nothing. 2 Senators, 5 House Reps, Presidential voting, and increased federal benefits and investment is more than worth it.
My ability to vote for a house member, president, and senate is certainly not worth being subject to income taxes--I would think most people who pay or will pay income taxes feel that way.
They already get lots of federal benefits, and many companies have set up operations there because it allows them to remain in the US but still have the associated tax breaks with Puerto Rico.
Would most people in Puerto Rico even have to pay federal income tax? The ability to send voting members of Congress would mean much more federal money spent in their areas. It would probably be a net benefit on matters of income.
LOL, tainted.
QuotePuerto Rico faces other hurdles within the United States. Statehood for the island is an issue that Republicans tend to oppose, which makes it highly unlikely that House Republicans would advance the issue even if Puerto Rico were making a genuine push for this change.
Heh. Wow the Republicans' level of political sanity continues to slip. I guess they just want to be seen as the anti-Latino party. That will do wonders for them in the future.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 11:17:02 AM
Heh. Wow the Republicans' level of political sanity continues to slip. I guess they just want to be seen as the anti-Latino party. That will do wonders for them in the future.
You're basing that on a statement in a blog?
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 11:17:02 AM
Heh. Wow the Republicans' level of political sanity continues to slip. I guess they just want to be seen as the anti-Latino party. That will do wonders for them in the future.
You're basing that a statement in a blog?
I don't understand anymore.
Then stop reading my posts full of typos. :angry:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
If we lived in a sane world that wasn't driven by identity politics, I think the US would be forcing Puerto Rico to become a state with Puerto Rico resisting. It is crazy they get an income tax exclusion and are contemplating giving it up.
Wouldn't many Ricans be excluded from income tax anyways on the grounds that they're dirt fucking poor and fall beneath the minimum taxable income?
Quote from: Neil on November 11, 2012, 11:44:21 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
If we lived in a sane world that wasn't driven by identity politics, I think the US would be forcing Puerto Rico to become a state with Puerto Rico resisting. It is crazy they get an income tax exclusion and are contemplating giving it up.
Wouldn't many Ricans be excluded from income tax anyways on the grounds that they're dirt fucking poor and fall beneath the minimum taxable income?
I think Mitt got them over the line there, they realized they were in the 47% and didn't pay income tax so they voted yes for more government handouts.
I think the Republicans should oppose this on the traditional republican grounds of anti-imperialism.
Quote from: Neil on November 11, 2012, 11:44:21 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
If we lived in a sane world that wasn't driven by identity politics, I think the US would be forcing Puerto Rico to become a state with Puerto Rico resisting. It is crazy they get an income tax exclusion and are contemplating giving it up.
Wouldn't many Ricans be excluded from income tax anyways on the grounds that they're dirt fucking poor and fall beneath the minimum taxable income?
Yes.
Quote from: Viking on November 11, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
I think Mitt got them over the line there, they realized they were in the 47% and didn't pay income tax so they voted yes for more government handouts.
I asked before about the handouts, but I don't think there are any that they don't get as a result of not being a state. I could be wrong.
There are still some sane, even sane latino Republicans out there. Running Brian Sandoval for President would be a decent idea.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 11, 2012, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 11, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
I think Mitt got them over the line there, they realized they were in the 47% and didn't pay income tax so they voted yes for more government handouts.
I asked before about the handouts, but I don't think there are any that they don't get as a result of not being a state. I could be wrong.
There are still some sane, even sane latino Republicans out there. Running Brian Sandoval for President would be a decent idea.
Once they get some congressmen and senators they can start getting their own pork. I think the US Navy is looking for a firing range, that will create some jobs.