Gov. Pedro Pierluisi: ‘Puerto Rico will be the first truly Hispanic state’

[hollodero]

(03-09-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not anymore.  They poisoned that well by making it blindingly obvious that they only want Puerto Rican statehood (and D.C.) because it will give them two more Democratic senators.

And how exactly did they do that. I ask that because I am under the impression that as soon any Democrat mentioned Puerto Rico statehood at any time, you would already have reached that verdict. But I don't know why you actually did.
Not that I believe it's not in their heads, it most probably is. And many GOP politicians probably are opposed to PR statehood for that very reason too. None of this should matter a bit in that question.

(03-09-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   The kvetching from the Dems about how the Senate works preceded that.  It's almost like they don't understand that the Senate is what it is by design.

Yeah I'm not so sure this nuclear option is all designed too, while endig the filibuster is clearly against that design.

I mean, that's all politics. I am against Puerto Rico's faith being decided on partisanship and/or accusations of partisanship and them being held hostage by it.

(03-09-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh sure, just as there's a case to be made to keep things as is.  In a way Puerto Rico has a sweet set up, they have their own government and a large degree of autonomy, but also get automatic US citizenship, something millions (billions?) of people would love to have.

There's not a case to be made that is consistent with fundamental democratic principles. Not in my view. In any real democracy, you can't withhold voting rights from citizens and that is a matter of principle. In a way, PR can easily be seen as the GOP's most successful ongoing voter suppression effort.

If it's a sweet deal for them, giving up certain fundamental citizen rights for some accomodations, that should be up to them to decide and they need to have that say about that. Only a colonial power would deem otherwise.
And the fact that the US citizenship is valuable to have can not change anything about that. Imho putting that argument out is a bit patronizing towards them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-09-2021, 12:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: And how exactly did they do that. I ask that because I am under the impression that as soon any Democrat mentioned Puerto Rico statehood at any time, you would already have reached that verdict. But I don't know why you actually did.
Not that I believe it's not in their heads, it most probably is. And many GOP politicians probably are opposed to PR statehood for that very reason too. None of this should matter a bit in that question.

They did it by flat out stating it.

Quote:Yeah I'm not so sure this nuclear option is all designed too, while endig the filibuster is clearly against that design.

I mean, that's all politics. I am against Puerto Rico's faith being decided on partisanship and/or accusations of partisanship and them being held hostage by it.

I haven't said I'm against statehood, I just don't like why it's now an issue.

Quote:There's not a case to be made that is consistent with fundamental democratic principles. Not in my view. In any real democracy, you can't withhold voting rights from citizens and that is a matter of principle. In a way, PR can easily be seen as the GOP's most successful ongoing voter suppression effort.

Not really, seeing as how they've decided against statehood themselves in the past.  I'm not familiar with any long term strategy by the GOP to prevent PR statehood.

Quote:If it's a sweet deal for them, giving up certain fundamental citizen rights for some accomodations, that should be up to them to decide and they need to have that say about that. Only a colonial power would deem otherwise.

This, of course assumes that the US should just let anyone join who wants to.  I understand that PR is a different situation than most, but statehood isn't a right.

Quote:And the fact that the US citizenship is valuable to have can not change anything about that. Imho putting that argument out is a bit patronizing towards them.

Meh, I'm just pointing out that they aren't exactly getting a raw deal as is.  Accusation of "colonialism" rather fall flat considering how Puerto Rico is actually treated.

[GMDino]

Here is a pretty good (long) transcript of a show about this issue.

https://theintercept.com/2020/12/18/deconstructed-puerto-rico-statehood/

Lots to consider on both sides but just a couple quick notes from the episode:

* Republicans seem to bring up the Democratic addition to the legislature more than the Democrats do.  There's a soundbite from  McConnell that sounds like he just cut words out of a DailyWire story and pasted them together like a ransom note:

Quote:"Sen. Mitch McConnell: They plan to make the District of Columbia a state — that would give them two new Democratic senators — Puerto Rico a state, that’d give them two more new Democratic senators. So this is a full-bore socialism."


* From the show: "...despite counting 3.1 million residents — so that’s more than the two Dakotas, Wyoming, and Vermont combined — Puerto Rico is not entitled to two voting senators or a commensurate number of House representatives."


* From the show: "...we move into the World War I-era, and we see that the United States grants Puerto Rican individuals the right to U.S. citizenship. But the 1917 bill, which was known as the Jones–Shafroth Act, was really not a lot more than a vehicle to draft Puerto Rican men into the American army."


* From the show:  "...before the imposition of the American Navy and Army into the Spanish colonies at the time, Puerto Rico enjoyed a fairly diverse agricultural economy. And as soon as America got its hands on Puerto Rico, it used it as an extractive sugar plantation, at one point sending over half of all production to the United States from Puerto Rico. It only got more inimical going forward. You see, in the 1910’s, or 1920, Congress passed what is known as the Merchant Marine Act, now we refer to it as the Jones Act. And that has the effect of making imports and dramatically more expensive for Puerto Rico; goods are marked up beyond measure.

Congress made it even worse in the 1970s, after enacting what was called Operation Bootstrap. They passed what was called Section 936, which was a tax break that allowed American companies to have offices, production facilities, what have you, in Puerto Rico, without having to pay any taxes that would redound to the benefit of Puerto Rico. It was essentially turning it into an offshore tax haven for major corporations. In fact, many of those industries, specifically pharmaceutical, Congress just allowed a rapacious industry that took out all of the resources and labor from Puerto Rico without ever paying anything back, which is one of the reasons why Puerto Rico’s cupboard is so bare to begin with, and I’m sure we’ll talk about that going forward."

Lot's of issues to look at but it really looks like we have treat PR as a plaything for our benefit without them having any representation in the government that is passing acts and laws about it.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2021, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This, of course assumes that the US should just let anyone join who wants to.  I understand that PR is a different situation than most, but statehood isn't a right.

I think my biggest problem is that we should not control any territory without it being a state. That's my position. Citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and all the minor outlying islands are provided different privileges and immunities than citizens of the states making up the United States. This flies in the face of the ideals of the founding of this country and of western democracy. If they aren't states, then they shouldn't be a part of the US. I would like to see legislation stating that by 01 January, 2023, every one of those territories will hold a referendum on their desire to seek statehood or independence and that outcome would take effect as of 01 January, 2025.

For DC, I think the question should be remain as a city, statehood, or incorporation into Maryland.

[hollodero]

(03-09-2021, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They did it by flat out stating it.

Sorry for riding this rather moot point, but I really wonder who they is and what they said exactly that made you so tense on that issue, in fact so tense that you seem to have little willingness to answer the PR question from any other perspective than this one.

(03-09-2021, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not really, seeing as how they've decided against statehood themselves in the past.  I'm not familiar with any long term strategy by the GOP to prevent PR statehood.

They have decided for statehood very recently. I think that superseeds past referendums in determining their will. When did they last express being against it? 22 years ago, as far as I can tell?
- Oh yeah, regarding the GOP and suppression, that is a fair counterpoint. It stops being one though if the GOP still blocks statehood, for just as partisan reasons as the other party applies in wanting statehood.

(03-09-2021, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This, of course assumes that the US should just let anyone join who wants to.  I understand that PR is a different situation than most, but statehood isn't a right.

Participating in elections is a citizen's fundamental right though, and representation, that's the right I was talking about.
In no way did I advocate letting anyone in who wants it. But Puerto Ricans are US citizens, you made them US citizens, and so yeah they get to want certain things that are fundamentally tied with citizenship.

(03-09-2021, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Meh, I'm just pointing out that they aren't exactly getting a raw deal as is.  Accusation of "colonialism" rather fall flat considering how Puerto Rico is actually treated.

Colonialism is not fundamentally tied to treating people awfully. But yeah, making decisions for them and having them have no say in it, withholding fundamental rights, and claiming that's not all that bad for we treat them real nice, that is a colonial power's approach. Contrasting a democracy's approach, where there's no doubt every citizen gets representation in Congress and gets to vote for the nation's leader.
You treat them as half citizens somehow. They get some goodies, like their passport and eeverything, but at a certain point they need to be content and show some modesty, even if they are withheld some rights fundamentally tied with citizenship.

[hollodero]

(03-09-2021, 02:01 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Should I bring up World War II here or...

Hey, that was nasty Germany. Nasty Germany overran us and made us their first victim. Don't blame us. That's victim shaming.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2021, 01:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hey, that was nasty Germany. Nasty Germany overran us and made us their first victim. Don't blame us. That's victim shaming.

Thread, posting a history meme everyday until we have a vaccine.
Day 1: pic.twitter.com/mPn6lBwvqu

— Annetifa Boleyn (@Gingerale_Gal) March 29, 2020

[hollodero]

(03-09-2021, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

Thread, posting a history meme everyday until we have a vaccine.
Day 1: pic.twitter.com/mPn6lBwvqu

— Annetifa Boleyn (@Gingerale_Gal) March 29, 2020

lol...

...well, the first one was nasty Serbia. They killed our heir to the throne, what were we supposed to do. What'd you have done if someone had killed Don jr. Also, I blame the US for world war 2, on the grounds that you got involved to thread the needle in world war 1. Should have just let us win that one.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2021, 03:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: lol...

...well, the first one was nasty Serbia. They killed our heir to the throne, what were we supposed to do. What'd you have done if someone had killed Don jr. Also, I blame the US for world war 2, on the grounds that you got involved to thread the needle in world war 1. Should have just let us win that one.

It's always interesting the way we remember the start of wars. Take the American Revolution where we are taught we fought against tyranny and heavy taxation that was unfair to the colonies. What they don't tend to teach, here, is that we were being taxed to pay for a war the colonists started that England didn't want (French and Indian War). It was England making the American colonies accountable for their actions, and they threw a tantrum.

[GMDino]

(03-09-2021, 03:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's always interesting the way we remember the start of wars. Take the American Revolution where we are taught we fought against tyranny and heavy taxation that was unfair to the colonies. What they don't tend to teach, here, is that we were being taxed to pay for a war the colonists started that England didn't want (French and Indian War). It was England making the American colonies accountable for their actions, and they threw a tantrum.

I didn't want to get swept up in this OT part of the thread but since you mentioned it..

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/33-tempest-in-a-teacup

Great little episode on the Tea Party.

[Dill]

(03-09-2021, 03:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's always interesting the way we remember the start of wars. Take the American Revolution where we are taught we fought against tyranny and heavy taxation that was unfair to the colonies. What they don't tend to teach, here, is that we were being taxed to pay for a war the colonists started that England didn't want (French and Indian War). It was England making the American colonies accountable for their actions, and they threw a tantrum.

And for which GB had to maintain forts and several thousand troops on the frontier for a decade afterwards.

The tax burden on Americans was much less than that on Britons in GB.

But we are AMERICANS and double standards are our political lifeblood.

[Dill]

(03-09-2021, 03:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: lol...

...well, the first one was nasty Serbia. They killed our heir to the throne, what were we supposed to do. What'd you have done if someone had killed Don jr. Also, I blame the US for world war 2, on the grounds that you got involved to thread the needle in world war 1. Should have just let us win that one.

Actually, I think that was a Bosnian, only acting in Serbia. Because Bosnia-Herzegovina was some empire's unjustly oppressed "territory," I believe.


PS  I'd have been fine with letting Austria-Hungary defeat Italy and France, if they could. Russia too. None of those had the moral high ground. A tie might have saved us a second WW. But your northern brothers were involved . . . . 

PPS You did save my ancestors from the Ottomans twice, so it's not all bad pre-20th cen.

PPPS Still don't want you guys acquiring our cast off territories though. Monroe Doctrine. We can't have a territory then no one can.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(03-09-2021, 01:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sorry for riding this rather moot point, but I really wonder who they is and what they said exactly that made you so tense on that issue, in fact so tense that you seem to have little willingness to answer the PR question from any other perspective than this one.

Yeah, I kind of wonder, too. Kind of like how every complaint about Trump was Democrats trying to reverse the 2016 election was by Republicans. The only time I've heard of it is from Republicans complaining why they don't want DC, Puerto Rico or Guam to become US states. Democrats may have said it, but I haven't seen or heard them say it. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-09-2021, 01:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sorry for riding this rather moot point, but I really wonder who they is and what they said exactly that made you so tense on that issue, in fact so tense that you seem to have little willingness to answer the PR question from any other perspective than this one.

Yeah, I tried to find the article I read in which Schumer flat out acknowledged it as a power grab, but I honestly can't find it.  If that negates the obvious motivation for this from the Democratic party for you then I guess so be it.  I did find an interesting article on it written during the Trump administration.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/25/the-politics-and-history-of-the-d-c-statehood-vote/

Quote:They have decided for statehood very recently. I think that superseeds past referendums in determining their will. When did they last express being against it? 22 years ago, as far as I can tell?
- Oh yeah, regarding the GOP and suppression, that is a fair counterpoint. It stops being one though if the GOP still blocks statehood, for just as partisan reasons as the other party applies in wanting statehood.

They've actually rejected it numerous times in the past.  Five to be exact.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/511160-doj-rejects-statehood-for-puerto-rico-so-do-puerto-ricans

Quote:Participating in elections is a citizen's fundamental right though, and representation, that's the right I was talking about.
In no way did I advocate letting anyone in who wants it. But Puerto Ricans are US citizens, you made them US citizens, and so yeah they get to want certain things that are fundamentally tied with citizenship.

Well, in reality they have all of these things, if they reside in the US.  As to the rest, I get the argument, I've never disagreed with the basic point.  I just don't like the naked power grab behind the push for it now.

Quote:Colonialism is not fundamentally tied to treating people awfully. But yeah, making decisions for them and having them have no say in it, withholding fundamental rights, and claiming that's not all that bad for we treat them real nice, that is a colonial power's approach. Contrasting a democracy's approach, where there's no doubt every citizen gets representation in Congress and gets to vote for the nation's leader.

They have their own, sperate government.  They get to vote for that.  You can't credibly make a case for them being exploited and disenfranchised based solely on that.

Quote:You treat them as half citizens somehow. They get some goodies, like their passport and eeverything, but at a certain point they need to be content and show some modesty, even if they are withheld some rights fundamentally tied with citizenship.

That's a disingenuous way of putting it, especially as they have their own autonomy in numerous ways.


https://welcome.topuertorico.org/government.shtml

The very first line from the government's own website;\

Puerto Rico is a self-governing commonwealth in association with the United States. 

The underlined is rather germane to the discussion at hand.

(03-09-2021, 06:24 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Yeah, I kind of wonder, too. Kind of like how every complaint about Trump was Democrats trying to reverse the 2016 election was by Republicans. The only time I've heard of it is from Republicans complaining why they don't want DC, Puerto Rico or Guam to become US states. Democrats may have said it, but I haven't seen or heard them say it. 

May have said what?  That they want these things because it helps them?  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that no one ever said that.  Do you think they would be pushing for these things if those places would likely elect GOP leaning Senators?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-09-2021, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think my biggest problem is that we should not control any territory without it being a state. That's my position. Citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and all the minor outlying islands are provided different privileges and immunities than citizens of the states making up the United States. This flies in the face of the ideals of the founding of this country and of western democracy. If they aren't states, then they shouldn't be a part of the US. I would like to see legislation stating that by 01 January, 2023, every one of those territories will hold a referendum on their desire to seek statehood or independence and that outcome would take effect as of 01 January, 2025.

Just a question, why would the residents of those places get the only say in their achieving statehood?  Should not the rest of the US states get a say in this?  Statehood carries with it a lot of political power, by design.  It's not something to be granted lightly.  How about we let Hawaii vote on not being a state anymore?  I think it's very possible that vote would end with a leave result, why is no one pushing that?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/03/full-independence-for-hawaii-looks-unfeasible-for-now/

Quote:For DC, I think the question should be remain as a city, statehood, or incorporation into Maryland.

The easiest, by far, resolution to this issue is incorporation in Maryland or Virginia.  The fact that not a single Democrat (that I am aware of) is advocating for either of these solutions speaks volumes.

Hey, while we're at it, let's get the state of Jefferson going again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2021, 08:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just a question, why would the residents of those places get the only say in their achieving statehood?  Should not the rest of the US states get a say in this?  Statehood carries with it a lot of political power, by design.  It's not something to be granted lightly.  How about we let Hawaii vote on not being a state anymore?  I think it's very possible that vote would end with a leave result, why is no one pushing that?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/03/full-independence-for-hawaii-looks-unfeasible-for-now/

Personally, I'm in favor of allowing states to secede. The reason I am in favor of the citizens of these territories having the say in it is because they are the ones that have been living in this territorial situation for so long. I think they should be given the opportunity to choose the destiny of their land. Technically speaking, the states would have their say if the legislation were passed.

(03-09-2021, 08:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The easiest, by far, resolution to this issue is incorporation in Maryland or Virginia.  The fact that not a single Democrat (that I am aware of) is advocating for either of these solutions speaks volumes.

Hey, while we're at it, let's get the state of Jefferson going again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)

Well, easiest isn't necessarily accurate. There is a lot of nuance there that complicates things. Honestly, even statehood for the city itself is a less than appealing thing, to me. I'm in favor of them having congressional representation, but I want more of a federal hand in the governance of the area than is typically seen with a state.

As for any other states, all for it. Change it all up. Imaginary lines running along mountain ridges, rivers, or just drawn on flat earth are arbitrary, anyway.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2021, 10:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I suppose my whole outlook on this issue is tainted by the blindly partisan nature of the Democratic position on this issue.  

Good thing Republicans never klet the partisan nature of an issue effect them.

Since the GOP officially supported satehood for Puerto Rico in 2016 then they will certainly still welcome and support it today

Republican Party Platform on Puerto Rico (pr51st.com)

Kind of rare for both sides to agree on an issue like this.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2021, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Good thing Republicans never klet the partisan nature of an issue effect them.

Since the GOP officially supported satehood for Puerto Rico in 2016 then they will certainly still welcome and support it today

Republican Party Platform on Puerto Rico (pr51st.com)

Kind of rare for both sides to agree on an issue like this.

They didn't change their party platform in 2020, so their official stance would still be to support statehood.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(03-07-2021, 12:45 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: If Republicans weren't afraid of two more Democratic Senators being added(Same by Democrats if Puerto Rico was mostly Conservative), they would have been a state a long time ago along with Guam and American Samoa. I say go through the process of adding them if Republicans continue to keep pushing for voter suppression laws.

^^^That was from my first post in this thread

(03-09-2021, 07:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: May have said what?  That they want these things because it helps them?  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that no one ever said that.  Do you think they would be pushing for these things if those places would likely elect GOP leaning Senators?

Hyper partisanship can be quite destructive and self defeating, even on internet message boards.

[hollodero]

(03-09-2021, 07:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I tried to find the article I read in which Schumer flat out acknowledged it as a power grab, but I honestly can't find it.  If that negates the obvious motivation for this from the Democratic party for you then I guess so be it.

I'm not naive. Of course it's in their heads, as I said. I believe you Schumer said it out loud, which well, was not so smart. This guy at times is not that smart.
I just feel democrats have no chance with you on any issue as soon as said issue might benefit them in any way, and I find that a bit too narrow a view. You call it naked power grab and all that time and again. But it might also just be the right thing to do.

Just to illustrate, outside of Puerto Rico for once: Making election ballots accessible for more people probably helps democrats, as does refuting the latest round of GOP laws regarding forbidding giving beverages to people standing in line or not allowing them to sit and whatnot, or older issues like having too few voting booths in largely democratic areas or hindering mail-in voting etc.
But now, whenever a democrat says he is in favor of more voting booths, or of allowing people to sit while standing in line, or broad access to mail-in ballots - you can always call that a naked power grab as well, for it will help democrats; and the democrat who is an favor of these things will know that too, making him an ultrapartisan actor. And with that mindset, you can take issue with being against voter suppression of any kind. I don't consider that the right angle, or the most relevant angle, to look at these things.

While I'm at it, I might also mention that I can just as well accuse every GOP member that is against PR statehood of a naked power conservation move. Which it would be just as much as wanting change would be a naked power grab.

Aside from that, the senate already tilts the GOP way the way it's set up anyway. So it would imho not create any unfair advantage for democrats to have two Puerto Rican senators.

But sure, mainly, party politics should not really matter here. But as I said, I'm not naive.

(03-09-2021, 07:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They've actually rejected it numerous times in the past.  Five to be exact.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/511160-doj-rejects-statehood-for-puerto-rico-so-do-puerto-ricans

Right, but the most recent referendum painted another picture and the new referendum imho superseeds the older and ancient ones.

(03-09-2021, 07:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They have their own, sperate government.  They get to vote for that.  You can't credibly make a case for them being exploited and disenfranchised based solely on that.


That's a disingenuous way of putting it, especially as they have their own autonomy in numerous ways.

It's not disingenuous to me. I consider it to be amongst the most fundamental rights of every citizen to vote for his nation's leader and be represented in this nation's parliament. If one denies them this right, I see that as citizenship light, or however to put it, a restricted one. That's just my principled take on this.
Having several commodities is not a replacement for that right. And voting for their own, widely autonomous government is not a replacement for that right. As US citizens, they should have the right to vote for US president and be in the US chambers. US being the key. And it's not like every important decision for them is decided within Puerto Rico by their local goernment anyway; there's quite a lot affecting or potentially affecting Puerto Ricans that is decided in Washington. War and Peace comes to mind, but of course a whole lot of other issues as well.