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

[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.