Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC?

[Gospel]

Oh and the left-winger thing doesn't fly since the Puerto Rican's didn't rescue Hillary in Florida during 2016 election even with Puerto Rico fresh off a Hurrican disaster and paper football.

 

[Trausti]

Lets be honest here. Puerto Rico won't be a state until 70% of its population is white.

Ok the % is hyperbole. Translation: There is not enough white people there.

??? PR is majority White.

 

[Gospel]

Lets be honest here. Puerto Rico won't be a state until 70% of its population is white.

Ok the % is hyperbole. Translation: There is not enough white people there.

??? PR is majority White.

Nah bruh, they ain't European, they're a mixture African, Spanish & some indigenous niggas (can't remember their names).

 

[TomC]

The only issue I can think of off the top of my dome is there not being enough white people in Puerto Rico.

I honestly don't think that's true. It's not 1965 any more. I think partisanship is a much bigger deal in 21st century USA. Republicans know that most people are more inclined towards the values and policies of the DNC than the GOP. The more voters there are, and the more they vote, the further down the democracy hole the TeaParty has dug the GOP falls.

That's why the GOP is so big on vote suppression.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Lets be honest here. Puerto Rico won't be a state until 70% of its population is white.

Ok the % is hyperbole. Translation: There is not enough white people there.

??? PR is majority White.

Nah bruh, they ain't European, they're a mixture African, Spanish & some indigenous niggas (can't remember their names).

No. The majority are Conquistador-American.

 

[Gospel]

Nah bruh, they ain't European, they're a mixture African, Spanish & some indigenous niggas (can't remember their names).

No. The majority are full-blooded Conquistador-American.

Ok that's a curveball. I'll check it out and if I don't reply you're right. That's how we do it around here.

 

[Gospel]

The only issue I can think of off the top of my dome is there not being enough white people in Puerto Rico.

I honestly don't think that's true. It's not 1965 any more. I think partisanship is a much bigger deal in 21st century USA. Republicans know that most people are more inclined towards the values and policies of the DNC than the GOP. The more voters there are, and the more they vote, the further down the democracy hole the TeaParty has dug the GOP falls.

That's why the GOP is so big on vote suppression.
Tom

You've got a point. I just get on these sort of rants sometimes because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[TomC]

Nah bruh, they ain't European, they're a mixture African, Spanish & some indigenous niggas (can't remember their names).

No. The majority are full-blooded Conquistador-American.

Ok that's a curveball. I'll check it out and if I don't reply you're right. That's how we do it around here.

Let me know what you find.
I, too, assumed that Puerto Ricans are the usual Caribbean mixture of African, indigenous, and Hispanic blood. But I've never paid much attention, so I don't know.
Tom

 

[SimpleDon]

There was Puerto Rican nationalist terrorism in past years. ...

You can say the same about the Republican party in the current year.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

On the other hand, support for Statehood in Puerto Rico is a very weak. It's there, just weak. The thinnest of majorities. So, can they actually apply the necessary pressure?

Pressure on whom?

On Republicans?
Probably not. After all, Republicans do have a strong motivation to be against: PR would be would probably give electors to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election for the foreseeable future, I think. And senators would be Democrat or in any case probably would vote with Democrats for the most part.

On Democrats?
Probably, it would not be needed, as Democrats against PR statehood could probably be pressured by Biden and plenty of other Democrats.

As long as the filibuster is there, PR will probably not be a state, barring a massive increase in popular support for statehood in PR. But then again, as long as the filibuster is there, DC will not be a state, either. And the Democrats are going to have trouble passing their legislative agenda. There is a significant chance that for one reason or the other, they will use the nuclear option. If they do and there is no filibuster anymore, PR has a high chance of becoming a state I think.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't care what AOC thinks's she's not my representative. I'm in Florida. Anyhow, I can't think of any reason negative enough for either American's living in Puerto Rico or American's living in the other 50 states that would be significant enough to warrant a yay or nay debate. The only issue I can think of off the top of my dome is there not being enough white people in Puerto Rico. Throughout American history whenever there is some real major issue, white people's wants and desires seem to be at the center. So what is it that white people would want before Puerto Rico becomes a state? The only thing that makes sense to me is more white people since that's the only quality it's missing that other states have (other than Hawaii which still benefited white people greatly).

Even if you're in Florida and she's not your representative, she's a representative so her legislative actions affect you as well. That might be a reason to care. But in any case, I mentioned her because she does not appear to be motivated by anything related to the number of White people. In any case, Puerto Ricans are already Americans, regardless of race. So, making PR a state would not change the racial composition of the US.


But that aside, for example the people in PR who do oppose statehood do not oppose it because of the percentage of White people in PR. Rather, they are nationalists who want independence, or have other interests in maintaining the statu quo (you can find a list in the PR debates about statehood).

As for those who oppose in other parts of America, there are other reasons as well, like ideology.

Oh and the left-winger thing doesn't fly since the Puerto Rican's didn't rescue Hillary in Florida during 2016 election even with Puerto Rico fresh off a Hurrican disaster and paper football.

Here is a piece of evidence:

http://cas.usf.edu/news/puerto-rican-vote-report.pdf

Regarding voting practices, around 54.5% of the U.S. subset voted in the 2016 presidential elections: 66% for Hillary Clinton, 24.2% for Donald Trump, and 9.7% for another candidate. The Florida subset did not depart much from these numbers, with 66.6%, 22.3%, and 11.1% respectively. If the presidential elections were held today, 19.1% of the U.S. subset indicated they would vote for a Republican candidate, 58.1% for a Democratic candidate, and 12.3% indicated they would not vote. Among the Florida subset, 22.5% indicated they would vote for a Republican candidate, 57.4% for a Democratic candidate, and 9.9% indicated they would not vote. Within the post-hurricane migrant subset, 14.7% indicated they would vote for a Republican candidate, 66.2% for a Democratic candidate, and 11.8% indicated they would not vote.

Those numbers seem to heavily favor Democrats. Even if that's not enough to rescue Clinton in Florida, if PR is a state, it will have senators and electors in a presidential election. Still, maybe you think that that would change against Democrats?

 

[Politesse]

On the other hand, support for Statehood in Puerto Rico is a very weak. It's there, just weak. The thinnest of majorities. So, can they actually apply the necessary pressure?

Pressure on whom?

On Republicans?
Probably not. After all, Republicans do have a strong motivation to be against: PR would be would probably give electors to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election for the foreseeable future, I think. And senators would be Democrat or in any case probably would vote with Democrats for the most part.

On Democrats?
Probably, it would not be needed, as Democrats against PR statehood could probably be pressured by Biden and plenty of other Democrats.

As long as the filibuster is there, PR will probably not be a state, barring a massive increase in popular support for statehood in PR. But then again, as long as the filibuster is there, DC will not be a state, either. And the Democrats are going to have trouble passing their legislative agenda. There is a significant chance that for one reason or the other, they will use the nuclear option. If they do and there is no filibuster anymore, PR has a high chance of becoming a state I think.

The enfranchisement of the colonized is a class matter, not a partisan matter. Democrats and Republicans tell different lies about empire, but they do not reverse its course until obliged to.

 

[TomC]

PR will probably not be a state, barring a massive increase in popular support for statehood in PR.

I'm not claiming to know PR well enough to have an opinion, I don't.

But I have to ask, do Puerto Ricans really want statehood? If the PR people, as a whole, really understood the other options would statehood be the choice of a solid majority?

I'm watching the slow motion disaster that is Brexit happen. A simple and small majority set the United Kingdom into uncharted waters. Part of the country is now leaving the EU voluntarily, while other parts are being dragged out by that small majority. This has created political fault lines that won't be plastered over with vague references to "strong borders" or "sovereignty" or flat out lies like "piles of money for health care". Northern Ireland and Scotland are more likely to leave Great Britain than £315,000,000/week will appear. Especially when the economic hits start rolling in.

If statehood becomes a serious option for PR, I sincerely hope it's a long drawn out process of decision. Multiple referendums, over years, closing in on a final decision that truly benefits the PR people. I don't know what that means. But I'm sure it isn't a snap decision.

And I'm sure that non-Puerto Rican people don't know either.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

But I have to ask, do Puerto Ricans really want statehood? If the PR people, as a whole, really understood the other options would statehood be the choice of a solid majority?

That is what they chose the last two times the question was put to vote.

It's weird that you are requesting a "long drawn out process of decision" in reference to a 122 year old controversy that has been debated, voted on, discussed in just about every manner imaginable, and on which certain positions have created and defined both of PR's major political parties. Just how much more drawn out could the process possibly be than it already has been?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The enfranchisement of the colonized is a class matter, not a partisan matter. Democrats and Republicans tell different lies about empire, but they do not reverse its course until obliged to.

First, they're not "colonized". That may have been the case of their ancestors. Present-day Puerto Ricans are American citizens, living in American territory.

Second, PR statehood seems to be a partisan matter. Let us take a look at opinion polls about support for PR statehood.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260744/americans-continue-support-puerto-rico-statehood.aspx

Democrats are 83% for statehood, 11% against. Republicans are 45% for, 48% against. That's among the public, but I would expect leaders to be even more partisan on this.

Third, what do you mean a "class matter"? Do you have any data linking class to support or opposition to PR statehood?
If you take a look at the data on the Gallup poll, it seems like education level does not have a strong correlation, and there is no info on income. On the other hand, party and ideology show very different levels of support.

 

[lpetrich]

History Shaped the Geographic Distribution of Genomic Admixture on the Island of Puerto Rico - PLoS Genetics, January 31, 2011

• European: 63.7 +- 15.2%
• African: 21.2 +- 14.4%
• Native: 15.2 +- 7.2%

The "Native" ones were the Taino people, and they came from South America.

Reconstructing the Population Genetic History of the Caribbean
Has a broader view. For instance, Cubans have about as much European ancestry as Puerto Ricans.

 

[Elixir]

Democrats are 83% for statehood, 11% against. Republicans are 45% for, 48% against. That's among the public, but I would expect leaders to be even more partisan on this.

Partisan? About as partisan as the COVID relief bill that just got ZERO votes from Republican Senators. That is to say, overwhelmingly popular with Americans in general.

If there were equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans (there aren't), the numbers you cited would represent that all people registered with both parties prefer statehood 64% to 36%.

Since Dems are actually 49% of the electorate while Reps are 44%, the public and the electorate are closer to "overwhelmingly in favor" rather than partisan.
Actual leaders would execute the will of the people. Republicans are scum, using outright lies to keep themselves in offices for the sole purpose of grifting from ignorant people who are vulnerable to Qanon, FOX, OAN and Newsmax propaganda. THOSE are the 36% above, the only people Republicans even try to look like they actually represent. No better way to put up that appearance than to oppose letting those brown people into the Upper Chamber.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Democrats are 83% for statehood, 11% against. Republicans are 45% for, 48% against. That's among the public, but I would expect leaders to be even more partisan on this.

Partisan? About as partisan as the COVID relief bill that just got ZERO votes from Republican Senators. That is to say, overwhelmingly popular with Americans in general.

If there were equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans (there aren't), the numbers you cited would represent that all people registered with both parties prefer statehood 64% to 36%.

Since Dems are actually 49% of the electorate while Reps are 44%, the public and the electorate are closer to "overwhelmingly in favor" rather than partisan.

Bad choice of words, perhaps. What I meant is that I would expect them to have a stronger tilt due to party affiliation than the general public, though I'm not certain of that, so let's say 'probably'.
As for the support among Americans, that's also in the poll: 66% support statehood, 27% oppose statehood.

And yes, of course the general public seems to be overwhelmingly in favor. But look at the general support and opposition vs. among Democrats and among Republicans, and you see a big tilt in one direction for Democrats and the other for Republicans. I would expect probably even a bigger one among their leaders, though again I'm not certain.

Actual leaders would execute the will of the people. Republicans are scum, using outright lies to keep themselves in offices for the sole purpose of grifting from ignorant people who are vulnerable to Qanon, FOX, OAN and Newsmax propaganda. THOSE are the 36%, the only people they even try to look like they actually represent. No better way to put up that appearance than to oppose letting those brown people into the Upper Chamber.

Actual leaders may or may not execute the will of the majority. More likely, they will act based on a variety of factors, like their ideology, political interests, and so on, and I was talking about Republican and Democrat leaders.

 

[ZiprHead]

Actual leaders would execute the will of the people. Republicans are scum, using outright lies to keep themselves in offices for the sole purpose of grifting from ignorant people who are vulnerable to Qanon, FOX, OAN and Newsmax propaganda. THOSE are the 36%, the only people they even try to look like they actually represent. No better way to put up that appearance than to oppose letting those brown people into the Upper Chamber.

Actual leaders may or may not execute the will of the majority. More likely, they will act based on a variety of factors, like their ideology, political interests, and so on, and I was talking about Republican and Democrat leaders.

This question was posed by Lawrence O'Donnell last week. Whose interest does the complete rejection of the stimulus represent?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actual leaders would execute the will of the people. Republicans are scum, using outright lies to keep themselves in offices for the sole purpose of grifting from ignorant people who are vulnerable to Qanon, FOX, OAN and Newsmax propaganda. THOSE are the 36%, the only people they even try to look like they actually represent. No better way to put up that appearance than to oppose letting those brown people into the Upper Chamber.

Actual leaders may or may not execute the will of the majority. More likely, they will act based on a variety of factors, like their ideology, political interests, and so on, and I was talking about Republican and Democrat leaders.

This question was posed by Lawrence O'Donnell last week. Whose interest does the complete rejection of the stimulus represent?

I don't know; I'm not so familiar with the details of that one. In any case, he motivation for voting against the stimulus need not be the same as the motivation for rejecting the stimulus. Voting against it might be just for show if they know it will pass anyway - and whom they make the show for depends on the case.