HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Post here if you support ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:01 PM

Post here if you support self-determination for Puerto Rico

They now say they want statehood...that is, they wish to end their colonial servitude and total inability to tax the megacorporations that bleed the island dry...so it seems to me we have a moral obligation to back the puertoricanos on this issue.

Also, do you think we should use Puerto Rico statehood as a case to remove the 435 seat limit on the size of the U.S. House? That size limit has been used for years as an argument against D.C. statehood(since some other state would have to lose some representation to accomodate a new state).

We need to start the discussion on this...since it may also be the key to starting the program of electoral reform(including the end of the Electoral College, instant runoff voting for presidential and gubenatorial elections, multi-member districts elected by pr for Congress, and perhaps other measures as well including national initative and referendums)that the country desperately needs.

94 replies, 4017 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 94 replies Author Time Post
Reply Post here if you support self-determination for Puerto Rico (Original post)
Ken Burch Nov 2012 OP
BumRushDaShow Nov 2012 #1
Xipe Totec Nov 2012 #2
AsahinaKimi Nov 2012 #21
Cleita Nov 2012 #3
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #6
Cleita Nov 2012 #8
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #10
Cleita Nov 2012 #14
Puregonzo1188 Nov 2012 #4
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #9
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #48
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #51
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #53
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #78
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #92
navarth Nov 2012 #5
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #7
navarth Nov 2012 #49
calico1 Nov 2012 #66
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #74
calico1 Nov 2012 #84
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #87
calico1 Nov 2012 #89
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #90
calico1 Nov 2012 #91
DJ13 Nov 2012 #11
Cayenne Nov 2012 #86
jberryhill Nov 2012 #12
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #15
jberryhill Nov 2012 #19
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #22
jberryhill Nov 2012 #23
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #24
jberryhill Nov 2012 #25
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #26
jberryhill Nov 2012 #28
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #32
jberryhill Nov 2012 #36
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #38
jberryhill Nov 2012 #47
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #50
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #62
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #75
montanto Nov 2012 #13
HappyMe Nov 2012 #16
RebelOne Nov 2012 #17
SDjack Nov 2012 #18
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #20
jberryhill Nov 2012 #27
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #31
jberryhill Nov 2012 #37
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #39
jberryhill Nov 2012 #41
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #42
jberryhill Nov 2012 #43
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #45
jberryhill Nov 2012 #46
calico1 Nov 2012 #59
calico1 Nov 2012 #58
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #73
calico1 Nov 2012 #85
LineReply !
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #29
lalalu Nov 2012 #30
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #33
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #55
lalalu Nov 2012 #56
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #61
lalalu Nov 2012 #64
PoliticAverse Nov 2012 #34
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #44
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #35
Flashmann Nov 2012 #40
bluedigger Nov 2012 #52
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #54
calico1 Nov 2012 #57
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #60
calico1 Nov 2012 #63
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #77
calico1 Nov 2012 #83
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #88
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #65
calico1 Nov 2012 #67
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #68
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #69
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #70
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #71
jberryhill Nov 2012 #72
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #76
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #79
Evasporque Nov 2012 #80
stevenleser Nov 2012 #81
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #82
Prophet 451 Nov 2012 #93
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #94

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:04 PM

1. Whatever the folks decide

and we need to get the 600,00+ people in D.C. a couple Senators and a (fully voting) Congressperson too.

And we damn sure need to increase the size of Congress. I think we are now up to something like 500 - 600,000 people per District (for those states that have a population greater than that). That's just unmanageable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:05 PM

2. I support self determination for Puerto Rico

Whatever road they want to take, that's fine with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:47 PM

21. I agree...

I hope they chose wisely !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:06 PM

3. I do, but having known some Puerto Ricans in my life I wonder how

many of them agree. Some regard the USA as a country that is occupying them and even though they enjoy American citizenship aren't quite sure they truly want to be a state. As to your other questions, maybe we should turn the House into a parliamentary system instead allowing for many parties instead of just two. That would eliminate the need for run-off voting except in the executive branch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:08 PM

6. Multi-member districts elected by pr would help in that regard.

It would be to OUR party's benefit for those who are dissatisfied with it(especially on the left)to have an non-destructive electoral outlet for that dissatisfaction. It would produce coalition legislative organizations...but would that necessarily be a bad thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:11 PM

8. I don't think so as long as they are kept honest

and hard to corrupt. It seems to work in other democratic countries, but it can also cause gridlock from what I have observed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:13 PM

10. Well, what we have now is corruption and gridlock anyway.

It's hard to see how changing the electoral system could make anything worse...the model we have now is based solely on restricting choice, suppressing dissent, and preserving the existing order at all costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:26 PM

14. I agree and I think you hit on the solution.

We have to end the corruption, that means a lot of Occupy type protests on a national scale until our legislators get it that they have to start working toward an incorruptible system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:08 PM

4. I would support independence if they had voted for it as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puregonzo1188 (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:11 PM

9. As would I.

And if they try statehood and then decide they PREFER independence, I'd back them on that as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:02 PM

48. If other states already in the Union decide they want independence can they go too?

If not, they why not? Why would you give PR special treatment that other states can't have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:54 AM

51. Puerto Rico isn't a state...it's a colony. That's what "commonwealth" status means

They are utterly powerless and gain nothing whatsoever from their current ties to the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #51)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:57 AM

53. You ducked the question. Try again to answer what I asked.

You said: And if they try statehood and then decide they PREFER independence, I'd back them on that as well.

If they become a STATE, then they are a state, EXACTLY the same as the other states. For all the other 50 states, statehood is permenant. But you would back PR being able to change their mind AFTER becoming a state. Would you allow any of the other 50 to decide on independence.

If PR wants to go from being a commonwealth to independence that is a different matter. The U.S. has long had a standing policy to honor such a vote by the PR people.

But to go from commnwealth to state to independent is a path that is closed to all states. Why would you allow such a path to be open to PR?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #53)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:23 PM

78. A distinction could be made in this case, and here's why:

None of the other states was ever a colony of the U.S.-that, by itself, makes Puerto Rico's situation different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:42 PM

92. In what way does a territory differ from a commonwealth or colony?

I don't see a difference between a territory or a colony.

What about the history of Hawaii? Should that state be offered a chance to secede?

Sorry, but if they become a state it must be as a fully equal state with the same status as the other 50.

If they want to vote for independence first, then I would fully support that. Since independence is available to them by simply voting for it, then I am against the violent separatist movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:08 PM

5. sure why not

the more the merrier. btw I don't think anybody is talking about forcing them to join, but yeah I support whichever way they want to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:10 PM

7. It's not about forcing them at all...they just VOTED for a pro-statehood party.

The coercion lies in keeping them chained to the status quo...which is exploitative and inherently unjust. There's no difference between being a "commonwealth" and just being a plain old British- or French-style colony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:07 PM

49. no disagreement here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:35 AM

66. Actually, the pro Statehood party (Republicans)

got spanked pretty bad. They lost the Governorship, as well as many House and Senate seats.

The Pro Commonwealth Party (Democrats) won big.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #66)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

74. I stand corrected on the party thing, but statehood itself won.

It makes no sense to me that the Democrat allies in Puerto Rico would back colonial servitude. What the hell are they thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #74)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:01 PM

84. It's complicated.

I lived there for 11 years when my parents decided to move back. Moved back here in '87.

The general feeling among the pro Commonwealth Democrats is they like the ties to the U.S., like being citizens but also like that bit of independence the status offers them.

Also, the Republicans there are extremely corrupt. You have no idea....

I think the idea of Statehood would be more popular if the party that promoted it weren't full of a-holes. LOL

I myself think Statehood would be good, but I never supported those Republican cretins when I lived there and I would not support them now, nor does most of my family that lives there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #84)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:00 PM

87. The corruption thing explains a lot.

Thanks for the explanations, though. I hope your homeland gets a decent future, however things turn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #87)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:05 PM

89. Yeah, me too.

As I said before I think Statehood would be nice. The percentage of people who have gone into the military is very high. Just based on that alone they should be able to have a voice in who their Commander in Chief is.

But it is such a mess down their politically. And the more Liberal minded people just have such a bad feeling toward the Republicans I think that just defensively they reject the Statehood idea because it comes from that side.

Such a mess!

I am glad that you support the island joining unlike some posters who don't want us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:08 PM

90. In some cases it's thinly veiled anti-Hispanic bigotry

They can't handle the idea of a state where the primary language isn't English. Why that still matters to anyone but total reactionaries, I don't know...but it does, for some reason.

No other country has this kind of hangups about what language people should speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #90)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:32 PM

91. One of the reasons I took a break from this forum was

some of the stuff I read here that made me think "This is a Liberal forum?"


Oh well, most people are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:14 PM

11. They voted for it, so Congress should consider it

Im not familiar with the differences between statehood and being a territory, but whichever is in the best interests of their citizens it is their decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:15 PM

86. They will have to start pay fed taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:17 PM

12. "They now say they want statehood.."


Did you look at that ballot?

A slim majority wanted some form of change - 53%

That was one question.

The second question was a forced choice of three options, of which 65% chose statehood.

What's 65% of 53%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:28 PM

15. Why do you describe that as a FORCED choice?

It's not as if the were told "vote for change or we'll kill you".

Are you a supporter of the status quo for some reason? It's not as if a progressive case could ever exist for preserving commonwealth status. The existing arrangement exists solely for the benefit of the anglo-owned corporations, who get to bleed the island dry without paying taxes(and don't have to pay the workers worth a damn).

My theory is that a lot of people voted for the statehood option who had a personal preference for a candidate who didn't back statehood yet who they agreed with on other issues...perhaps some voted for statehood because they didn't think they could get independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:44 PM

19. I don't think you understand the concept of "forced choice" in polling

The ballot should have been:

Pick one:

(A) no change
(B) statehood
(C) independence
(D) sovereign relationship

That's how you find out which option they want.

A "forced choice" is when I ask you:

Do you want:

(A) a ham sandwich
(b) a bologna sandwich

...and leave out the option of "I'm not hungry".

The ballot they were given was:

1. Do you want:
(A) change
(B) no change

2. Do you want
(A) statehood
(B) independence
(C) sovereign relationship

What happens in that polling situation is that you have people who voted "no change" on the first question, who then also select a choice on the second question. You also have people who skipped the second question, among other combinations. What you don't get in that two-question structure is a measure of what the majority of people want. You can't, because the poll is fundamentally flawed.

That second question is a "forced choice" question. That's the name for that sort of question, notwithstanding your apparent ignorance of the term.

The result is that you are saying "65% of Puerto Ricans want statehood" when the result of the first question, which you omit to mention in your OP, was that only 53% wanted any change at all.

I am in favor of the Puerto Ricans deciding their future. If it was up to me, I'd love to have PR as a state.

I am not in favor of your mischaracterization of the ballot they voted on.

Here, go read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-alternative_forced_choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:47 PM

22. Point of clarification...what is a "sovereign relationship"?

How is that different from the status quo?

And do you really believe that there's some huge block of pro-status quo Puerto Ricans who were denied the chance to express THEIR wishes? If there had been, wouldn't the pro-status quo gubenatorial candidate have been elected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:55 PM

23. You didn't read the ballot, did you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/puerto-rico-statehood_b_2118727.html

The referendum had two parts. The first part asked whether the voter agreed with Puerto Rico's current status as a U.S. commonwealth, which was described on the ballot as Puerto Rico's "current territorial condition." By a 54 percent to 46 percent margin, the voters rejected Puerto Rico's current territorial condition, stating in effect that they would like to change their current status. The second part was entitled "Non-Territorial Options," and listed three options: (1) Statehood, (2) Sovereign Free Associated State, and (3) Independence.


The "Sovereign Free Associated State" is a form of autonomous government which is nonetheless allied with another government. Indian reservations, or some forms of Commonwealth relationship like, say, Cayman Islands is to the UK.

Read on the nasty right-wing blog at Huffpo:

However, a fair reading of the referendum results shows clearly that the headlines proclaiming that a majority of Puerto Ricans support statehood are misleading and erroneous, and certainly promote considerable cynicism regarding Puerto Rico's political process. Indeed, the votes of nearly half a million voters who did not support statehood were not counted. These voters deliberately left blank the second part of the ballot, in effect stating that they preferred a fourth option to the three options listed on the ballot. These voters likely would have supported a fourth option, choosing some form of commonwealth status similar to the current arrangement, but since this option did not appear on the ballot, would have checked a box marked "other" if such a ballot option was available, which it was not. The absence of this fourth option, and the reason for its omission, explain why the official results of this referendum are spurious, and certainly do not support the dramatic headlines proclaiming Puerto Rico's approval of statehood.


I was thrilled when I first read the 65% figure. Unlike you, I bothered to find out what, exactly, the ballot propositions were.

You are, by falling into the casual read of those headlines, essentially imposing your view of what you want on Puerto Ricans. I do not favor that. I believe they should have self-determination, and not your uninformed read of a headline.

This issue has been kicked around - in Puerto Rico by Puerto Ricans - for a very long time. What excited me about this story initially was the shocker that after decades of not being able to reach a consensus, it seemed they had.

The truth, however, is more complex than a headline based on incomplete information about what they actually voted on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:06 PM

24. OK...I hadn't read the ballot...but you hadn't linked to it, either.

It appears that you think there is still a pro-status quo majority that was somehow cheated in this result. Since only wealthy Puerto Ricans who are lackeys of the anglo corporations would support keeping the status quo, I'm not sure why you'd think that. The status quo has no benefits whatsoever for the working-class majority of Puerto Ricans-and what would be the point of listing it if a list of "non-territorial options"?

I appreciate the explanation of the "sovereign status" option. It's odd that they'd include that, since there's no reason for anybody at all in Puerto Rico to have wanted it(Jesus, who would ever want to emulate the Caymans?)

We're going to disagree on this, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:10 PM

25. You started your OP with "they said they wanted statehood"


I support Puerto Rican self determination.

If find it odd that you "disagree" with that.

Weirder still is that you think, among the options, they shouldn't be allowed to pick "status quo", and they shouldn't be able to pick a sovereign status similar to that held by Native Americans.

Who are YOU to tell them what choices they should be able to select for their own future?

Whether YOU think there's "no reason" for it to be on the ballot, some of them selected that option. I don't see where you get off saying, "Oh, no, you shouldn't be allowed that choice" while saying out of the other side of your mouth that it's up to them.

Who is it up to? Them, or the choices Ken Burch would allow them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:13 PM

26. Sovereign status would be worse than what Native Americans get.

And no Native American group would hold their status quo up as a model for anybody else.

My God, being like the Cayman Islands means having no dignity. Only statehood or independence can be progressive. You say you're pro-statehood, yet you're arguing that a colonized people might actually WANT to stay colonized. How COULD they want that, since they gain nothing from the status quo at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:15 PM

28. Can you define what you mean by "self determination"?


To my mind, it means letting them decide what they want, and does not include telling them what options they may be allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:17 PM

32. Nobody voluntarily chooses a colonial status quo as their act of self-determination.

Only a change of status can be self-determination. Everybody in Puerto Rico who voted for the status quo did so solely out of fear.

BTW...you're sounding like you're a partisan of the sovereign status thing. Can you name ANY positive features of it for those who aren't rich?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:35 PM

36. 46% of Puerto Ricans chose that on the first ballot option


I'm not a "partisan" of anything other than letting them choose whatever they want. I don't have an argument for or against any option.

You have an odd definition of "self determination", and your willingness to call 46% of Puerto Ricans "nobody" makes me wonder if you are Mitt Romney's speechwriter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:37 PM

38. You're trying to discredit the choice they DID make

And we have no way of knowing if those in the 46% really want the status quo or were just frightened into voting for it by corporate propaganda and threats. I wasn't insulting or negating those people, just questioning whether they really wanted the status quo or simply felt forced to choose it. By contrast, it's hard to imagine anyone voting for change out of fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:55 PM

47. Fine, their votes weren't valid

That's what you are saying.

Why did they get rid of the pro-statehood governor, and elect one who supports the status quo?

Do you know?

You are certainly free to push the GOP line on this thing. It's just odd for DU...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/puerto-rico-statehood-vote_n_2088254.html

Gov. Luis Fortuno, a member of the pro-statehood party who is also a Republican, welcomed the results and said he was hopeful that Congress would take up the cause.

But Fortuno won't be around to lead the fight: Voters turned him out of office after one term, and gave the governship to Alejandro Garcia Padilla of the Popular Democratic Party, which wants Puerto Rico to remain a semi-autonomous U.S. commonwealth.


So... pro-statehood guy out. Status-quo guy in. They should change that result because I guess they only elected him out of fear.

The raw numbers, which include the undervote on the second question, are interesting too....

It was a two-part ballot that first asked all voters if they favor the current status as a U.S. territory. Regardless of the answer, all voters then had the opportunity to choose in the second question from three options: statehood, independence or "sovereign free association," which would grant more autonomy to the island of nearly 4 million people.

More than 900,000 voters, or 54 percent, responded "no" to the first question, saying they were not content with the current status.

On the second question, only about 1.3 million voters made a choice. Of those, nearly 800,000, or 61 percent of those expressing an opinion, chose statehood the first majority after three previous referendums on the issue over the past 45 years. Some 437,000 backed sovereign free association and 72,560 chose independence. Nearly 500,000, however, left that question blank.


Accordingly, this guy has an invalid opinion:

Luis Delgado Rodriguez, who leads a group that supports sovereign free association, noted all the voters who left the second question blank, raising questions about their preference. He said those voters, coupled with those who support independence and sovereign free association, add up to more than those who favored statehood.

"This represents an overwhelming majority against statehood," he said.



Interpret it however you like.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to Puerto Rico?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:41 PM

50. They got rid of the governor because he was allied with the GOP

I doubt his position on statehood was the deciding factor.

The pro-Democratic candidate backed the status quo, and it's hard to understand why he ever would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:27 AM

62. People of Hong Kong probably would have chosen to remain a colony

There are more than a few places in the British Empire that like being colonies. Bermuda maybe? Definitely the Falklands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:17 PM

75. That would be a valid comparison

If Puerto Rican statehood OR independence meant being absorted into China.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:18 PM

13. absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:30 PM

16. Yes, I support self determination for PR.

Whatever they decide, is all good with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:34 PM

17. I support statehood for Puerto Rico.

I have been in Puerto Rico and our cab driver tried to bargain down the price for the cab drive to our hotel. He said that all Americans are rich. Well, once they gain statehood they will see that not all Americans are rich because they will also be Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:41 PM

18. I think it is in Puerto Rico's best interest to

have a pure definitive referendum on its desire for the future. Then, USA should honor it.
If I were a Puerto Rican, I would want PR to be an independent nation with non-aggression pacts with all neighbors. That would let PR operate without a military. Before we seized them, they operated successfully as an independent Nation. Maybe they can do it again. If not, then they can petition for statehood with us or some other neighbor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SDjack (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:45 PM

20. The referendum should offer the choices of statehood or independence

There's no reason the status quo should be on there, since Puerto Ricans were basically coerced in to accepting it in the first place and only kept backing it out of fear that the corporations doing business there would leave if they actually had to pay taxes.

There's no difference between being a commonwealth and being a colony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:14 PM

27. "There's no reason the status quo should be on there"


Do you support "self determination" or not?

If you support self determination, it is not your place to tell them what options they "should" or "should not" have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:16 PM

31. Because it isn't what Puerto Ricans want.

You're carrying water for the corporations here, whether you realize it or not. And sovereign territorial status can't have any positive features unless you have an offshore bank account in such a place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:36 PM

37. Well, since you know what they want, we can skip to the end, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:39 PM

39. 53% said they wanted change overall-we can't assume those in the 46% truly wanted the status quo.

Or simply said no out of fear of corporate retaliation.

On the "non-territorial optiosn", it's likely that most of the 33% who backed the "sovereign status" were casting a pro-status quo vote, since there's no meaningful difference between commonwealth and sovereign status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:03 PM

41. Wow...

You really need to work in elections, so you can discard votes like:

"White guy voted for Obama out of 'liberal guilt'" - no, that one doesn't count

"White guy voted against Obama out of racism" - no, that one doesn't count

When we look at election results, we generally don't tend to "unskew" them by discounting people who voted one way or another for improper reasons.

This issue aside, that is just a whole new way of looking at voting, which I'd never seen before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:06 PM

42. You sound like you're convinced that Puerto Ricans want the status quo after all

Based on one article on Huff Post.

Colonialist mindset.

And I'm not discarding votes...just rejecting the argument that the people of Puerto Rico DIDN'T really vote for what they voted for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:08 PM

43. That's not even what the Huffpo article said


If it was up to me, they'd be the 51st state.

It's not up to me. I would prefer it was up to the Puerto Ricans. You are the only one here who considers yourself fit to decide what choices they should have.

That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:11 PM

45. It was up to them and they chose.

Having the status quo on the list of options would have made no difference. It's colonialist to pretend that Puerto Ricans still want to be totally powerless or would prefer to be even more powerless by turning into an Indian reservation or the Caymans.

The HuffPo article was written by an ultraconservative defender of colonialism. Gershman sounds like a retired British colonel writing about Ireland or India.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:14 PM

46. People that care about the design of polls....

...tend to care about the design of polls more than the result.

It's called "science". When you want to measure something, it is generally advisable to use a tool which fits the thing you are trying to measure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:19 AM

59. "Because it isn't what Puerto Ricans want."

Uh, yeah, about half of them do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:16 AM

58. Actually, a LOT of people are very happy with the status quo

of Commonwealth.

It's split about 50/50. I tiny % want Independence.

And the people who support the Commonwealth status are the Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #58)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:14 PM

73. Which makes no sense, since Commonwealth status is right-wing and exploitative

There's nothing progressive at all in the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #73)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:02 PM

85. Not really.

Remmeber, it's the Democrats that are the Commonwealth party.

The only people there that I know of who think of themselves as being in servitude are the ones who support Independence, which is about 5% or so of the population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:15 PM

29. !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:16 PM

30. If we make them a state then in ten years

 

they will claim it was forced and they want independence. Cut them loose and let them be independent. Then they can choose what type of relationship they want to continue. It will save a lot of headache.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:20 PM

33. Perhaps they need the statehood-to-independence sequence.

You can't really openly advocate Puerto Rican independence IN Puerto Rico without being persecuted by the police apparatus there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:02 AM

55. Can other states choose independence? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:05 AM

56. Puerto Rico is not a state.

 

If we force them to become a state then they can demand independence through secession. It may develop into an ugly situation just as we have now with some southern states. I can't see the logic in adding more lunacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #56)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:25 AM

61. Sorry, I replied to the wrong post.

I meant to reply to #33 that want to let them become a state, then independent. That is a path that no state has. If they vote for independence - fine, no problems. If they vote for a state then their statehood should be no different from that of any other state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:27 AM

64. OK

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:23 PM

34. They don't want to join the secession fad ? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:09 PM

44. At this point, they have nothing to secede from.

Commonwealth status IS colonial status...and the "Enhanced Commonwealth" option right-wing Puerto Ricans wanted(which was barred from the referendum for being unconstitutional)would still have been colonial servitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:25 PM

35. Sure. Swap one of the seccssionist states and we won't have to change the flag.

Maybe we could work a deal and trade France for Texas. There's already a Paris, Texas, that the Texans can take with them when they leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:02 PM

40. I support self determination for Puerto Rico

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:58 AM

52. I support self-determination for PR.

The latest referendum doesn't convince me that they have reached a consensus yet, though. When I lived there for half a year in '96, public opinion was split nearly in thirds as to whether they wanted statehood, independence, or a continuation of the status quo, and it seems to have changed little since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:00 AM

54. K&R for PR!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:08 AM

57. Okay, my sister lives there and this is what she told me:

The first question asked if you were happy with the status quo to which 64% of the respondents said "no."

The second question asked which status you prefer: Statehood, Independence or status quo. Fifty-four % responded "Statehood" so the people who want statehood is 54% of 64%.

I have posted a few times before that I lived there for a number of years. The pro Statehood party is the Republican Party. The ones who like Bush, Reagan, Romney. etc. The pro Status quo party is the Democrats...the ones who love Clinton, Obama, etc.

My sister says this referendum was a scheme by the Republican candidate for Gov. who figured that everyone voting for Statehood would vote for him but as it turned out that did not work.

The Republicans lost badly. Not just the Gov. seat but also many local Senate and House seats.

The Democrats are in charge now and they are not interested in pursuing Statehood because they favor the status quo, Commonwealth.

Also, my niece who also lives there told me that Obama had said that he would only consider Statehood if the clear majority of people there wanted it. This referendum does not indicate a clear majority.

My efforts to explain the politics as far as this issue goes have pretty much been ignored, as I am sure they will be again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:22 AM

60. I think the US should be out of Puerto Rico

We don't need a naval base there to protect the Panama Canal...because we don't have the Panama Canal anymore.

Microsoft burns all of their CDs there because it allows them a tax dodge. Same with pharmaceutical companies manufacturing plant.

On the whole PR is a drain on the US and we would do well to be quit of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:27 AM

63. Wow...

This Puerto Rican, who has lost relatives in 3 wars thanks you very much for your support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:21 PM

77. I would also support independence for Puerto Rico if the people backed that.

Don't take my OP as an anti-independence position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #77)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:55 PM

83. Not sure what you mean.

I am not in favor of Independence and I am not promoting itl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #83)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:01 PM

88. I misinterpreted what you said above.

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:32 AM

65. After Occupying Them For Over A Century We Have A Moral Obligation To Them/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #65)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:35 AM

67. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #65)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:36 AM

68. What exactly is that moral obligation?

They are grown ups. They clearly do not want to be a state. It has been offered to them many times over the years, but they son't want to do it.

We have a moral obligation to clean up after ourselves. Vieques being a prime example. I think Roosevelt Roads is closed.

We have a moral obligation to give giant companies a tax dodge?

We have a moral obligation to keep sending them tax dollars in perpetuity?

What about the moral obligation to the janitor in Scranton to use her tax dollars wisely?


BTW, this moral obligation business is the colonial mindset that thinks people are children and unable to take care of themselves. It is infantilizing and could be considered racist. I'm not calling you a racist, but that colonial mindset is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #68)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:43 AM

69. Last Time I Looked Pennsylvania Wasn't War Booty Like Puerto Rico

Unless you claim the sovereignty Pennsylvania enjoys by our revolution against the British is war booty... And if Puerto Rico was to become a nation it would require massive amounts of federal aid until it was self sufficient. In fact to give Puerto Rico their independence without providing for its sustenance would be a war crime under international law.


Also, what's to happen to the millions of Puerto Ricans who live in other parts of the nation that now enjoy U.S. citizenship?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #69)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:48 AM

70. Where do you get the idea that Puerto Rico is not self-sufficient?

They would tax their citizens and pay their bills like every other country. They can do it. Free people have that ability. And those in the US can stay US citizens or even hold dual citizenship if they wish. Lots of people do that. Or they can renounce US citizenship. Again, these are decision every person makes.

What is unique about Puerto Ricans that you think they can't do normal things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #70)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:59 AM

71. Well, Maybe Because Like A Lot Of States They Get More From DC Than They Give

I don't think states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, et cetera could be immediately self sufficient if they magically became sovereign tomorrow. With the passing of time , yes, but overnight, never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #69)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:40 PM

72. "War Booty"

The appropriate remedy to that sort of classification would be to offer it back to Spain.

Or, get it a date with Gen. Petraeus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:19 PM

76. I support Statehood. Especially since right wing, red state yarblockos are massively overrepresented

In the US Senate.

DC should get statehood- and two senators, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:23 PM

79. I'll not only post, I'll recommend it.

 

In addition to your excellent points, I think we need a round field of stars on our flag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:37 PM

80. Republicans will limit it to what is good for republicans based on race....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:48 PM

81. I support Self Determination for Puerto Rico. I wonder what the threshold should be for change

though, particularly statehood. I am not sure 51% is enough for that IMHO. I think that 55% or 60% of the island should have to vote for any major change to the status quo before it is done. When I say 55% or 60%, I mean that 55% or 60% of all voters have to vote for the particular change, not 'a' change.

It should be overwhelming consensus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:53 PM

82. Let the people of PR decide if they want statehood or independence or the status quo.

I don't have a dog in this fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:58 PM

93. I support whatever the people of PR want to do

If they want to be a state (and I gather they just voted that way), then they should be made a state as soon as logistically possible with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. I would support the same thing if DC residents voted to become a state.

And the 435 limit needs to go. It's a dumb, arbitrary limit that fulfills no purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:59 PM

94. I support their right to self-determination. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread