Advertisement
by Guy » Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:41 pm
[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by Maurepas » Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:05 pm
Geilinor wrote:New Giliberafta wrote: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.
by Galloism » Tue Jun 28, 2016 11:14 pm
Maurepas wrote:Geilinor wrote: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
by Maurepas » Tue Jun 28, 2016 11:16 pm
Galloism wrote:Maurepas wrote: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.
by Myrensis » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:06 am
Maurepas wrote:Geilinor wrote: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
by Maurepas » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:09 am
Myrensis wrote:Maurepas wrote: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.
by Myrensis » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:18 am
Maurepas wrote:Myrensis wrote:
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.
by Conserative Morality » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:25 am
Myrensis wrote: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!"
by The Romulan Republic » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:51 am
Maurepas wrote: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.
by Guy » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:08 am
Myrensis wrote:Maurepas wrote: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.
[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by UED » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:00 am
The Romulan Republic wrote:Maurepas wrote: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).
by Maurepas » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:05 am
UED wrote:The Romulan Republic wrote:
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.
by UED » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:06 am
Maurepas wrote:UED wrote:
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.
by Maurepas » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:14 am
by Dahon » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:17 am
Maurepas wrote: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.
by Galloism » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:18 am
Dahon wrote:Maurepas wrote: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?
by UED » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:35 am
Corrian wrote:Interesting how even though the Republicans fuck over Puerto Rico, Democrats still narrowly win. Guess people just love being screwed over.
by Corrian » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:53 am
by Galloism » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:58 am
Corrian wrote: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.
by Dahon » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:59 am
Corrian wrote: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.
by UED » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:00 am
Galloism wrote:Corrian wrote: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.
by Maurepas » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:00 am
Corrian wrote: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.
by UED » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:03 am
Maurepas wrote:Corrian wrote: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.
by USS Monitor » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:05 am
Corrian wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Atrito, Bali Kingdom, Czechostan, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann, Pasong Tirad, Perishna, Shearoa, Sublime Ottoman State 1800 RP, Vanuzgard
Advertisement