[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[Guy]

It's possible to have more than one option on the ballot, as long as you do it right. For example, I guess IRV would work? Options could be current status, free association, statehood. (Countries in free association are considered to be independent for all purposes, I believe -- there was almost no support in the most recent referendum for independence without free association.)

[Maurepas]

Agreed. It should be like the EU referendum. Remain its current status as a US territory and.eventually gain statehood, or leave the US all together.

I don't think that should be the question. The question on a statehood referendum should simply be, "Should Puerto Rico become a state?" Independence should be a separate vote.

I'm pretty sure they already had that vote in 2012 and voted for Statehood. It's Congress that hasn't acted on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ri ... ndum,_2012

[Galloism]

I don't think that should be the question. The question on a statehood referendum should simply be, "Should Puerto Rico become a state?" Independence should be a separate vote.

I'm pretty sure they already had that vote in 2012 and voted for Statehood. It's Congress that hasn't acted on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ri ... ndum,_2012

It would upset the balance of power and give Puerto Rico legal avenues against vulture capitalists.

It is therefore.... bad, I guess.

[Maurepas]

I'm pretty sure they already had that vote in 2012 and voted for Statehood. It's Congress that hasn't acted on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ri ... ndum,_2012

It would upset the balance of power and give Puerto Rico legal avenues against vulture capitalists.

It is therefore.... bad, I guess.

Yeah, unfortunately I expect that's the case, *sigh*

[Myrensis]

I don't think that should be the question. The question on a statehood referendum should simply be, "Should Puerto Rico become a state?" Independence should be a separate vote.

I'm pretty sure they already had that vote in 2012 and voted for Statehood. It's Congress that hasn't acted on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ri ... ndum,_2012

No. A majority of people did vote for a change to the current status quo. Another majority said that Statehood would be their preferred option if a change were to happen. But because it was a terribly designed referendum where everyone got to vote on every part regardless of whether they thought a change should happen or not, and a full third (enough to change the result) were left blank which several groups had encouraged to protest lack of alternatives...it doesn't really tell us anything helpful, which people on all sides of the argument pointed out before it was even voted on.

What is needed, which I believe the President and groups in Puerto Rico have called for, is a straight up "DO YOU WANT TO BECOME A STATE? YES/NO" full stop. No multi-step multi-option nonsense.

[Maurepas]

I'm pretty sure they already had that vote in 2012 and voted for Statehood. It's Congress that hasn't acted on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ri ... ndum,_2012

No. A majority of people did vote for a change to the current status quo. Another majority said that Statehood would be their preferred option if a change were to happen. But because it was a terribly designed referendum where everyone got to vote on every part regardless of whether they thought a change should happen or not, and a full third were left blank which several groups had encouraged to protest lack of alternatives...it doesn't really tell us anything helpful, which people on all sides of the argument pointed out before it was even voted on.

What is needed, which I believe the President and groups in Puerto Rico have called for, is a straight up "DO YOU WANT TO BECOME A STATE? YES/NO" full stop. No multi-step multi-option nonsense.

I can be on board with that, I'm just pointing out that the popular will is there on the part of Puerto Rico, we just need to facilitate it. But I'd imagine that's only happening if the Dems can get control of Congress. I doubt the GOP is interested in 2 more likely Dem Senate Seats and House Reps.

[Myrensis]

No. A majority of people did vote for a change to the current status quo. Another majority said that Statehood would be their preferred option if a change were to happen. But because it was a terribly designed referendum where everyone got to vote on every part regardless of whether they thought a change should happen or not, and a full third were left blank which several groups had encouraged to protest lack of alternatives...it doesn't really tell us anything helpful, which people on all sides of the argument pointed out before it was even voted on.

What is needed, which I believe the President and groups in Puerto Rico have called for, is a straight up "DO YOU WANT TO BECOME A STATE? YES/NO" full stop. No multi-step multi-option nonsense.

I can be on board with that, I'm just pointing out that the popular will is there on the part of Puerto Rico, we just need to facilitate it. But I'd imagine that's only happening if the Dems can get control of Congress. I doubt the GOP is interested in 2 more likely Dem Senate Seats and House Reps.

If Puerto Rico passed a clear and unequivocal referendum on Statehood..I don't really know how the GOP could stop it. I mean I know they could, but Puerto Rico has a higher population and GDP than nearly half of the current states, I don't see what possible paltry excuse they could try to throw up to cover the fact that it boils down to "We don't need anymore Democrat-loving wetbacks!"

[Conserative Morality]

If Puerto Rico passed a clear and unequivocal referendum on Statehood..I don't really know how the GOP could stop it. I mean I know they could, but Puerto Rico has a higher population and GDP than nearly half of the current states, I don't see what possible paltry excuse they could try to throw up to cover the fact that it boils down to "We don't need anymore Democrat-loving wetbacks!"

'Murca speaks Anglish, not Mexican.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think Puerto Rican Statehood should be on the Democratic Party Platform. A lot of PR's problems stem from the fact that Congress doesn't have the same responsibilities to them that they do the rest of the States.

Agreed.

And while we're at it, we need to look at the status of the other territories and DC (on that note, Sanders is a backer of DC statehood).

[Guy]

I think Puerto Rican Statehood should be on the Democratic Party Platform. A lot of PR's problems stem from the fact that Congress doesn't have the same responsibilities to them that they do the rest of the States.

So, put in a plank about campaigning for a straight up or down referendum on the matter in Puerto Rico? That is essentially the only thing in the way of Statehood, getting the Puerto Ricans themselves to directly and unequivocally vote for it.

I'm fine with an up/down vote on statehood. I think it'd be more democratic to include the third viable option (independence with a Compact of Free Association).

I don't think that the Democratic Party should advocate a particular stance for PR. It's best if they decide for themselves. Advocacy groups are more than capable of making the case for statehood.

[UED]

I think Puerto Rican Statehood should be on the Democratic Party Platform. A lot of PR's problems stem from the fact that Congress doesn't have the same responsibilities to them that they do the rest of the States.

Agreed.

And while we're at it, we need to look at the status of the other territories and DC (on that note, Sanders is a backer of DC statehood).

I believe the GOP might try to prevent Puerto Rico + DC statehood. DC is way too Democratic (I think like they voted 80%-ish Democrat last year?) which means the Republicans will automatically lose 2 senate seats. Puerto Rico is a wild card in my opinion. It voted Democrat 2012 by a slight margin. It would probably be like 1 sen Republican 1 sen seat Democrat usually, sometimes switching during landslide elections. Still balance of power will favor the Democrats.

[Maurepas]

Agreed.

And while we're at it, we need to look at the status of the other territories and DC (on that note, Sanders is a backer of DC statehood).

I believe the GOP might try to prevent Puerto Rico + DC statehood. DC is way too Democratic (I think like they voted 80%-ish Democrat last year?) which means the Republicans will automatically lose 2 senate seats. Puerto Rico is a wild card in my opinion. It voted Democrat 2012 by a slight margin. It would probably be like 1 sen Republican 1 sen seat Democrat usually, sometimes switching during landslide elections. Still balance of power will favor the Democrats.

Yeah, but just because the Republicans would oppose something doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be on the platform. After all, they're different parties for a reason.

[UED]

I believe the GOP might try to prevent Puerto Rico + DC statehood. DC is way too Democratic (I think like they voted 80%-ish Democrat last year?) which means the Republicans will automatically lose 2 senate seats. Puerto Rico is a wild card in my opinion. It voted Democrat 2012 by a slight margin. It would probably be like 1 sen Republican 1 sen seat Democrat usually, sometimes switching during landslide elections. Still balance of power will favor the Democrats.

Yeah, but just because the Republicans would oppose something doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be on the platform. After all, they're different parties for a reason.

True.
Lol weren't the original issues slavery + tariffs/free trade?

[Maurepas]

Yeah, but just because the Republicans would oppose something doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be on the platform. After all, they're different parties for a reason.

True.
Lol weren't the original issues slavery + tariffs/free trade?

Most of the States in the continental United States were fought over along those lines during their transition from territories. The balance of power in the Senate, since no matter the population of the state you get 2, was what kept the South's obstruction against the Free States in place. A big part of the reason for the Civil War was that the South saw the writing on the wall that that balance of power was going away.

Were I to be making decisions in Congress and the GOP were to oppose it on the grounds that it would upset the balance of power, I would cudgel them repeatedly with that comparison, heh heh.

[Dahon]

I think Puerto Rican Statehood should be on the Democratic Party Platform. A lot of PR's problems stem from the fact that Congress doesn't have the same responsibilities to them that they do the rest of the States.

I've heard that Puerto Ricans do have some advantages over the states with their weird political set-up they've got going for the past few decades now. Are there?

[Galloism]

I think Puerto Rican Statehood should be on the Democratic Party Platform. A lot of PR's problems stem from the fact that Congress doesn't have the same responsibilities to them that they do the rest of the States.

I've heard that Puerto Ricans do have some advantages over the states with their weird political set-up they've got going for the past few decades now. Are there?

Kind of. They don't pay federal income tax, but their federal payouts are also limited.

It's all very complicated.

[Corrian]

Interesting how even though the Republicans fuck over Puerto Rico, Democrats still narrowly win. Guess people just love being screwed over.

[UED]

Interesting how even though the Republicans fuck over Puerto Rico, Democrats still narrowly win. Guess people just love being screwed over.

Who doesn't love it? We've voted in the Bushes three times now for President. Jeb Bush 2020

[Corrian]

Also, in a hypothetical likely 2024 election...What if both Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren were to run against each other in the Democratic primary? Who would you vote for? (I dunno why, this thought popped into my head)

Honestly...I have no idea who I would choose.

[Galloism]

Also, in a hypothetical likely 2024 election...What if both Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren were to run against each other in the Democratic primary? Who would you vote for? (I dunno why, this thought popped into my head)

Honestly...I have no idea who I would choose.

Consideration: Warren would be 75 years old.

[Dahon]

Also, in a hypothetical likely 2024 election...What if both Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren were to run against each other in the Democratic primary? Who would you vote for? (I dunno why, this thought popped into my head)

Honestly...I have no idea who I would choose.

I'm no American, but Tamayo over Warren any day of election year. (Of course, if a Tamayo-Warren ticket could be forged...)

[UED]

Also, in a hypothetical likely 2024 election...What if both Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren were to run against each other in the Democratic primary? Who would you vote for? (I dunno why, this thought popped into my head)

Honestly...I have no idea who I would choose.

Consideration: Warren would be 75 years old.

We'll have the Democratic version of Reagan then

[Maurepas]

Also, in a hypothetical likely 2024 election...What if both Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren were to run against each other in the Democratic primary? Who would you vote for? (I dunno why, this thought popped into my head)

Honestly...I have no idea who I would choose.

I honestly don't know. It's way too early for me to start picking that, lol. But I will say I'm less comfortable with Warren as President than I am with her as Vice President. I expect she'd be a lot less friendly to trade than the Clintons would be.

But if I'm being honest, the biggest reason Trade is such a big deal to me is my father's career being dependent on it. In 8 years, provided the Republicans don't get their way, he's likely to be retired and hopefully I'll have had a steady job as a Teacher for a while and it might not be as big of a deal to me. I still think it's beneficial to the country as a whole, so I'm not ready to say I'd abandon it, but I can't deny it's a factor.

[UED]

Also, in a hypothetical likely 2024 election...What if both Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren were to run against each other in the Democratic primary? Who would you vote for? (I dunno why, this thought popped into my head)

Honestly...I have no idea who I would choose.

I honestly don't know. It's way too early for me to start picking that, lol. But I will say I'm less comfortable with Warren as President than I am with her as Vice President. I expect she'd be a lot less friendly to trade than the Clintons would be.

But if I'm being honest, the biggest reason Trade is such a big deal to me is my father's career being dependent on it. In 8 years, provided the Republicans don't get their way, he's likely to be retired and hopefully I'll have had a steady job as a Teacher for a while and it might not be as big of a deal to me. I still think it's beneficial to the country as a whole, so I'm not ready to say I'd abandon it, but I can't deny it's a factor.

I knew it! You must be a neo-liberal shill who thinks Hillary and the rest of the Moderate Republicans within the Democratic Party are entitled to the presidency??!?!?!?!?

[USS Monitor]

Also, in a hypothetical likely 2024 election...What if both Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren were to run against each other in the Democratic primary? Who would you vote for? (I dunno why, this thought popped into my head)

Honestly...I have no idea who I would choose.

Probably Gabbard, but I might change my mind once they actually started campaigning. Or I might just not vote in the primaries if it was down to the two of them with no other competition. Since I don't have a strong preference, maybe it would be best to just sit back and let the people who have a stronger preference decide who they want.

I think either one would be a pretty solid choice.