03-10-2021, 03:09 PM
(03-10-2021, 12:03 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.
Here's the thing though, say PR has a vote and votes no, which, as pointed out, has already happened five times in the past. How many times do we go through this process? Will we have a vote every time the Dems feel like they need two extra senators? It's rather like Scottish independence or Brexit. Have your vote and abide by the result. I'd be fine with a time limit between votes, as of course attitudes and positions shift over time. But there needs to be a set time frame that is abided by.
Quote: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.
I don't think you can call allowing US citizens to vote a "power grab". I think advocating for some avenues of voting can be, and I, personally, would have zero issue with requiring a free government issued ID be presented to vote. If I have to fill out a form every time to exercise my Constitutional right to buy a firearm and be subjected to a NICS check then a person can be bothered to present an ID to vote. Like I said, make the ID completely free and easy to get.
Quote: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.
Absolutely. Just as Dems would be against northern CA breaking off into the state of Jefferson. It's all partisan. What I fear is that this will set off a round of near balkanization, in which states splinter into more and more pieces. For example, rural CA is heavily red and consists of millions of people. Those people, not wanting to be dictated to by the three major population centers in the state, could make the case that there views are entirely ignored, necessitating a break off from the rest of the state.
Quote: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.
It tilts that way due to most states being largely rural outside the coasts.
Quote:But sure, mainly, party politics should not really matter here. But as I said, I'm not naive.
Indeed, which is why I'd be fine with the process if the results were binding for "X" time.
Quote:Right, but the most recent referendum painted another picture and the new referendum imho superseeds the older and ancient ones.
It would depend how the referendum was worded.
Quote: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.
I think a very good argument could be made that voting for your own government is not a replacement for that right, it is the right itself.
