03-10-2021, 05:55 PM
(03-10-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Essentially it would trigger a tit for tat scenario. Rural CA has expressed immense frustration with being dictated to by the cities for numerous decades. This isn't a new argument and Puerto Rican statehood would only reawaken it, with a vengeance IMO.
I apparently know too little about that.
I find it hard to explain to Puerto Ricans that if they wished for statehood and/or their basic voting rights to be enacted, they are in bad luck because of something going on in California that might intensify. I find this a tough reason to deny Puerto Ricans basic civic rights, that, as often said, consist of [...] (you know what's following)
(03-10-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is if the people advocating for it are the ones benefitting from it. If the Dems saw Puerto Rico as politically purple then they wouldn't be advocating for it.
Well, this again goes for voter suppression laws as well. Democrats, as far as everyone including Democrats and Republicans believe, benefit from more people voting too. I don't find that a valid reason to not address voter suppression laws, and I wouldn't accuse Democrats of naked power grabs if they were advocating against voter suppression laws. I'd also not muse about their fictional alternative stance if more people being able to vote would not help them. I reiterate that because that's what I feel you're doing regarding the somewhat analogous Puerto Rico question.
I don't care what it means for democrats or what their openly stated or allegedly hidden motives are, and I think it should not matter all that much. This isn't about democrats, it's about the right thing to do.
(03-10-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd disagree. The referendum should clearly delineate what Puerto Rico will lose and what it will gain via statehood. Presenting people with a choice without explaining the consequences of said choice, both for and against, is dishonest (not the same as lying btw).
Not the same... agreed.
But I wonder how consistent your position on that is. If it were consistent, you'd have to demand the Brexit referendum to be disregarded as well. Where people also were just asked remain or leave. They were presented with that choice, while not much was laid out, people were actually lied to constantly, and no one really could know what a final deal with the EU even would look like or if there even were any such deal to be had. Still people had to vote on it, and still the result was binding to this day.
Sure, a new binding referendum would probably be in order before declaring the will of the Puerto Ricans decided, but the lack of explanation or information is a murky counterargument to me. On the grounds that hardly any election comes with a plethora of objective information to begin with. It's democracy, it ain't ever perfect.
(03-10-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, and I would be interested in your thoughts on a time limit between such referendums. Also, forgive me for not addressing every point you made in this post. I felt that on some of the topics we were both repeating ourselves, so I confined my response to areas where I thought future discussion would engender some progress.
Well, I don't really know the ideal timeframe. I'd agree having such a referendum every five years or so would be too eager, but this to me is not the case in Puerto Rico. Where I'd rather say there was no such referendum ever, or maybe 22 years back. 22 years, that I find a very acceptable timeframe, there's a whole new generation of Puerto Ricans and at some point, they have the right to make their own decisions instead of being bound by their parents' and grandparents' decision forever.
And I'm more than fine with leaving stuff out. These exchanges tend to lengthen in time, cutting it down is good.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
