I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.
Also, parts of Canada as we're running low on wood. We'll call it North Texas. But not Quebec. feth those guys.
You forgot the syrup... they have a STRATEGIC.RESERVE.OF.MAPLE.SYRUP! If that's not a reason to "encourage" them to join the union... I don't know what is. Can Haliburton get involved?
AustonT wrote: I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.
This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.
Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).
Illinois splitting? Wouldn't that just be Chicago and Rest-of-Illinois?
Pretty much... I first thought, I thought it was the southern district wanting this (Chicago Overlording the south). But, it's actually the Northern district (Chicago) because they believe there's a disportionate tax revenue/expenditures between the North and South.
AustonT wrote: I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.
This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.
Dropping a long lost 40 year old case for abortion would woo women too, which one do you expect them to go for first?
Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).
Illinois splitting? Wouldn't that just be Chicago and Rest-of-Illinois?
Every time I hear about a state splitting I have to stifle a yawn.
Illinois isn't splitting, NYC isn't going to become independent, Arizona and California are as likely to split as I am to become a dyed in the wool Marxist historian. Which to be clear is never going to happen.
AustonT wrote: I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.
This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.
Dropping a long lost 40 year old case for abortion would woo women too, which one do you expect them to go for first?
Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).
Illinois splitting? Wouldn't that just be Chicago and Rest-of-Illinois?
Every time I hear about a state splitting I have to stifle a yawn.
Illinois isn't splitting, NYC isn't going to become independent, Arizona and California are as likely to split as I am to become a dyed in the wool Marxist historian. Which to be clear is never going to happen.
But it's simple math! We need an even number of stars!
AustonT wrote: I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.
This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.
Dropping a long lost 40 year old case for abortion would woo women too, which one do you expect them to go for first?
AustonT wrote: I'll wait to be excited until Congress makes it real. I want to see which side opposes statehood. My guess is Republicans because I'll bet on the national stage PR is a virtual guarantee of 2 more blue Senators.
This here is a PERFECT opportunity for the Republican to "woo" the latinos and bring them into the Union.
Dropping a long lost 40 year old case for abortion would woo women too, which one do you expect them to go for first?
Amnesty first... abortion last... 'just saying.
Sorry when did we start talking about amnesty?
I was being sorta snarky... (getting threads mixed up).
I was just saying that this is a good opportunity to change the Republican party to be more inclusive and the hispanics generally mesh up well with the moderate Republicans.
So... Republicans enthusiastically voting for PR's statehood is a step in the right direction.
Just like a bi-partisan Amnesty bill (Not current iteration of Dream Act), would go along way to wooing the hispanics.
It's just not realistic which is the point I was trying to convey. It would take RADICAL internal reforms to get there. Like the kind of reforms the Whigs had before they became the Republicans.
Wewt! about time. I knew it couldn't be far when they spanked us at basketball in the Olympics, the local papers read "Is it Too late to make Puerto Rico a State?"...after all how long could we endure that shame?!
Huffy wrote: Psshh we're gonna break you guys up into the states of Scotland, Wales, and England....57,58,and 60
Of course we're gonna imposes taxes of tea on you first....during the military occupation
Do hurry up old chap. Lest you become a Chinese province first.
A tax on tea indeed! I thought you had rules against cruel and unusual punishments.
Maybe, but the Tax will not be in $. It will be in extraditing Justin Bieber and Snooki to the british isles as part of the occupation. We will keep the Royal Family on the condition that Harry marry Snooki(who will be forcibly divorced)
AustonT wrote: It's just not realistic which is the point I was trying to convey. It would take RADICAL internal reforms to get there. Like the kind of reforms the Whigs had before they became the Republicans.
You talking about the "splitting of the states"? Or the idea that Republicans be more inclusive?
Huffy wrote: Psshh we're gonna break you guys up into the states of Scotland, Wales, and England....57,58,and 60
Of course we're gonna imposes taxes of tea on you first....during the military occupation
Do hurry up old chap. Lest you become a Chinese province first.
A tax on tea indeed! I thought you had rules against cruel and unusual punishments.
Maybe, but the Tax will not be in $. It will be in extraditing Justin Bieber and Snooki to the british isles as part of the occupation. We will keep the Royal Family on the condition that Harry marry Snooki(who will be forcibly divorced)
Agreed as long as the English accent is outlawed....it grates on my ears something fierce.
But anyways what do you guys think the chances of PR becoming a state are? Like in terms of getting through Congress?
Yeah, it should pass. Hasn't it been PR that voted to not opt for statehood previously? I thought I remembered somthing about that in 2008 or 2010 or I could be crazy.
AustonT wrote: It's just not realistic which is the point I was trying to convey. It would take RADICAL internal reforms to get there. Like the kind of reforms the Whigs had before they became the Republicans.
You talking about the "splitting of the states"? Or the idea that Republicans be more inclusive?
Hulksmash wrote: Yeah, it should pass. Hasn't it been PR that voted to not opt for statehood previously? I thought I remembered somthing about that in 2008 or 2010 or I could be crazy.
They didn't vote on that in 2008 or 2010, so you are slightly crazy. But, they did vote on it in 1967, 1993, and 1998, so you're not too crazy.
Previously, Puerto Rico always voted to retain their current status. This time, 54% voted to change the status, and 61% voted that the status change should be to statehood (33% for sovereign free association, and 6% for complete independence).
Not exactly overwhelming numbers, so we'll see if anything comes of it (this was all non-binding). But, if Puerto Ricans want to become a state, they have my full support.
Huffy wrote: Psshh we're gonna break you guys up into the states of Scotland, Wales, and England....57,58,and 60
Of course we're gonna imposes taxes of tea on you first....during the military occupation
Do hurry up old chap. Lest you become a Chinese province first.
A tax on tea indeed! I thought you had rules against cruel and unusual punishments.
Ah, but in exchange for taxed tea, you get free TV. Can't be American unless you sit on the couch watching too much TV while achieving obesity with Mountain Dew and Doritos.
This is all a Conspiracy by the flag makers.
They arent selling as many flags as they used to, So they convince PR to become a state, therfore creating a boom in flag sales.
Nothing, really. I left off the Quebec came to mind first, but it could have been Alberta or Ontario...
No you meant Quebec. I'm afriad I can't expand; because it's almost as xenophobic as Degaulle. I'm willing to take BC to Manitoba but east of Quebec is negotiable. Hurray you can have your precious independence.
Huffy wrote: Agreed as long as the English accent is outlawed....it grates on my ears something fierce.
Erm what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is all a Conspiracy by the flag makers.
They arent selling as many flags as they used to, So they convince PR to become a state, therfore creating a boom in flag sales.
Chuck Todd said earlier on MSNBC that he expects "immigration reform" to pick up at least 80 to 90 votes in the Senate now, and I for one agree with him. Republicans gave the, "rely on white people," thing a chance two presidential elections in a row, and it didn't work for them. It wouldn't shock me if they hold the convention in Tijuana in 2016.
I'm just going to assume you've never been to TJ...
I'm interested to see what Barry's idea of immigration reform will be after deporting an average of 32,000 people a month. About 12,000 more than George II. Lesbianist this country was better off when our borders were porous and we weren't as concerned with legalizing our workers. I won't say I agree with it, but I'm pretty sure it's true.
Wait, wait, wait. All the quotes and topic jumping have left me confused. Was there actually a suggestion that Puerto Ricans who come to the USA be offered amnesty? I really hope I just missed something in all the quoting and re-quoting.
Something in the back of my mind is chipping away at me. If PR becomes a state then it loses all the perks of being a territory while as a state they gain some things but lose a bit of things. I'm not sure but I don't think they pay federal income tax as a territory.
Breotan wrote: Wait, wait, wait. All the quotes and topic jumping have left me confused. Was there actually a suggestion that Puerto Ricans who come to the USA be offered amnesty? I really hope I just missed something in all the quoting and re-quoting.
er... what?
No.... amnesty is a different topic really.
PR just essentially voted to join the union. Now it's up to Congress/Pres to agree.
Oh... and an awesome new flag!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Something in the back of my mind is chipping away at me. If PR becomes a state then it loses all the perks of being a territory while as a state they gain some things but lose a bit of things. I'm not sure but I don't think they pay federal income tax as a territory.
I'm pretty sure they pay taxes...
But, as a state, they'd get more tax revenue from the Federal Govmint, in tune of something like 20 billion a year... which is no chump change.
Also, the Full Force of the Federal Bureacracy can help turn some things around there.
PR who already, serve in the militry, have government reps with limited voting power already in the US, and many of the other rights giving a US citizen. Yeah, let them be state, they basiclly are now.
Breotan wrote: Wait, wait, wait. All the quotes and topic jumping have left me confused. Was there actually a suggestion that Puerto Ricans who come to the USA be offered amnesty? I really hope I just missed something in all the quoting and re-quoting.
er... what?
No.... amnesty is a different topic really.
PR just essentially voted to join the union. Now it's up to Congress/Pres to agree.
Oh... and an awesome new flag!
Yea, I know how the vote went and yes, I know Puerto Ricans are U.S. Citizens. I was just misreading something in the thread, I guess. As for the flag, I expect the government to choose the ugliest one. It's just the way the government works.
Noir wrote: PR who already, serve in the militry, have government reps with limited voting power already in the US, and many of the other rights giving a US citizen. Yeah, let them be state, they basiclly are now.
Puerto Ricans are already full U.S. citizens. They have been for over a hundred years, iirc. The statehood issue doesn't change that. It only changes their ability to vote for the President, have electoral college votes, two senators and a few representatives in Congress.
Didn't know PR wanted to join the "party". I wouldn't mind. Doubt I'd see any real change. Congress would probably just keep the flag as is due to overcrowding stars, being lazy and being afraid of change.
Huh. Apparently I would be living in Potawatomi. Wouldn't mind the name change. I'd be all "I live in Potawatomi!" and they'd all be "What?" and I'd explain and sound smart.
Fun aside, wanting to split due to differing political views makes sense but it also doesn't. Apparently rural Illinois (largely republican) is bothered by urban Illinois (Chicago mainly being Democrat) being the "deciding factor" in votes since there are apparently more democrats in the Chicago area than there are republicans in the rest of Illinois. I understand wanting to split to have a bit more weight in votes, like yesterday's election, and dealing with policies. However, this is literally kicking a city out of a state because the city happens to think differently from the countryside. I know states have split in the past but I'm sure it was for better reasons than because they think differently. I could be (and probably am) wrong though; whatever the justification may be.
If they can grant statehood to four more locations so it's an even 55, or make the stars on the flag work, then sure. But if not, then no way. I'm OCD like that-it's gotta match up and be neat. Sadly, I'm not kidding. I have nothing against PR. I have something against imbalance.
Didn't know PR wanted to join the "party". I wouldn't mind. Doubt I'd see any real change. Congress would probably just keep the flag as is due to overcrowding stars, being lazy and being afraid of change.
Huh. Apparently I would be living in Potawatomi. Wouldn't mind the name change. I'd be all "I live in Potawatomi!" and they'd all be "What?" and I'd explain and sound smart.
Fun aside, wanting to split due to differing political views makes sense but it also doesn't. Apparently rural Illinois (largely republican) is bothered by urban Illinois (Chicago mainly being Democrat) being the "deciding factor" in votes since there are apparently more democrats in the Chicago area than there are republicans in the rest of Illinois. I understand wanting to split to have a bit more weight in votes, like yesterday's election, and dealing with policies. However, this is literally kicking a city out of a state because the city happens to think differently from the countryside. I know states have split in the past but I'm sure it was for better reasons than because they think differently. I could be (and probably am) wrong though; whatever the justification may be.
Dude... I don't know why, but a state called "Potawatomi" just seems all kinds of awesome.
As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
The Senate would have to expand by two for each State.
The Representative are based on districts and theoretically, the total number could stay the same (538).
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
It really has more to do with state rather than national politics. The majority of Illinois feels like its being steam rolled by the city in the state legislature which affects thier day to day a lot more than the president.
I imagine there's some similar sentiment in Ohio, but to be frank I don't know that many buckeyes. At a guess I'd say Chicago politicians do thier business at the state level and Cleveland politicians content themselves at the city level, but again a guess.
timetowaste85 wrote: If they can grant statehood to four more locations so it's an even 55, or make the stars on the flag work, then sure. But if not, then no way. I'm OCD like that-it's gotta match up and be neat. Sadly, I'm not kidding. I have nothing against PR. I have something against imbalance.
Naw we can get rid of the square organization of the stars and go to a circular formation(it looks wayyy better)
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
Well, it would actually give more power to the conservative countryside. Because Illlinois's electoral votes would be split between the 2 new states. Whereas before it was winner takes all, suddenly its more akin to the popular vote.
Frankly, I think the Electoral College needs to be scrapped. Its a relic from a time when you simply couldn't count all the popular votes fast enough to have the election have any meaning.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
House of Representatives is based on population.
Senate is 2 per state.
Electoral college is based on population plus 2 for each state. Roughly the same number as Representatives plus Senators.
Frankly, I think the Electoral College needs to be scrapped. Its a relic from a time when you simply couldn't count all the popular votes fast enough to have the election have any meaning.
We should go to a straight popular vote.
Except that's not at all the rationale behind the Electoral College.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
House of Representatives is based on population.
Senate is 2 per state.
Electoral college is based on population plus 2 for each state. Roughly the same number as Representatives plus Senators.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
House of Representatives is based on population.
Senate is 2 per state.
Electoral college is based on population plus 2 for each state. Roughly the same number as Representatives plus Senators.
If by roughly you mean exactly the same (plus electoral 3 for DC), then yes.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
Well, it would actually give more power to the conservative countryside. Because Illlinois's electoral votes would be split between the 2 new states. Whereas before it was winner takes all, suddenly its more akin to the popular vote.
Frankly, I think the Electoral College needs to be scrapped. Its a relic from a time when you simply couldn't count all the popular votes fast enough to have the election have any meaning.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
Well, it would actually give more power to the conservative countryside. Because Illlinois's electoral votes would be split between the 2 new states. Whereas before it was winner takes all, suddenly its more akin to the popular vote.
Frankly, I think the Electoral College needs to be scrapped. Its a relic from a time when you simply couldn't count all the popular votes fast enough to have the election have any meaning.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
House of Representatives is based on population.
Senate is 2 per state.
Electoral college is based on population plus 2 for each state. Roughly the same number as Representatives plus Senators.
Not roughly, exactly.
When I checked the math, I was missing 3. I forgot about DC.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
House of Representatives is based on population.
Senate is 2 per state.
Electoral college is based on population plus 2 for each state. Roughly the same number as Representatives plus Senators.
Not roughly, exactly.
When I checked the math, I was missing 3. I forgot about DC.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, electoral votes and representation at Congress are based on population. Kicking Chicago out of Illinois would only affect the Senate, surely?
Well, it would actually give more power to the conservative countryside. Because Illlinois's electoral votes would be split between the 2 new states. Whereas before it was winner takes all, suddenly its more akin to the popular vote.
Frankly, I think the Electoral College needs to be scrapped. Its a relic from a time when you simply couldn't count all the popular votes fast enough to have the election have any meaning.
We should go to a straight popular vote.
I think you should have something closer to the Westminster system, and I'm not even trolling. You'd still have a bicameral parliament (so two houses, as is the case now), but you'd have a Leader of the Opposition, and the head of government would be decided by which party has the most seats in parliament, as opposed to a straight national popularity contest. It would give other parties a chance at representation (something a lot of you guys seem to complain about a lack of), if nothing else.
Plus, you'd get President's Questions on telly! Imagine!
Puerto Rico did not vote for statehood 63% of 54% of the population voted for statehood. I.E. - 34% of the population if I understand the results and ballot correctly. I suspect this was intentionally done to obfuscate the real result and make the number seem greater than it really is.
Regarding splitting states, ever hear of redistricting?
Redistricting is a tool the Democrats and Republicans use to try to stack the deck more in their favor. Splitting a state apart requires votes at the State level and then again at the Federal level that simply aren't there.
I think it'd be great to have a new state in the union.
Speaking of statehood... has anyone heard of Illinois wanting to split up? (I'm assuming North vs Southern).
I'm for it if it has benefits for all concerned with minimal mayhem. I was down there during one of the statehood votes and it was extremely heated with people being killed with myself almost being added to the talley. From what I read it was a slim minority that voted for statehood, and if it was anything like the time I witnessed, I'd hold off on the celebrations.
timetowaste85 wrote: If they can grant statehood to four more locations so it's an even 55, or make the stars on the flag work, then sure. But if not, then no way. I'm OCD like that-it's gotta match up and be neat. Sadly, I'm not kidding. I have nothing against PR. I have something against imbalance.
It's even, harkens back to your original flag, and looks pretty too.
chaos0xomega wrote: Puerto Rico did not vote for statehood 63% of 54% of the population voted for statehood. I.E. - 34% of the population if I understand the results and ballot correctly. I suspect this was intentionally done to obfuscate the real result and make the number seem greater than it really is.
Regarding splitting states, ever hear of redistricting?
It is the same in any democratic vote, however "Churchill, etc".
West Virginia was split from Virginia early in the ACW for political reasons, though the circumstances were exceptional, of course.
htj wrote: Tell you what, if there is a significant change in the flag it's going to be a real shot in the arm for the Americana and Knick Knack industries.
htj wrote: Tell you what, if there is a significant change in the flag it's going to be a real shot in the arm for the Americana and Knick Knack industries.
htj wrote: Tell you what, if there is a significant change in the flag it's going to be a real shot in the arm for the Americana and Knick Knack industries.
So China...
So they just need a campaign to Buy American American Flags. Maybe they could copywrite the design, and only sell it to American companies? Oh wait, China, that's not going to work...
chaos0xomega wrote: Puerto Rico did not vote for statehood 63% of 54% of the population voted for statehood. I.E. - 34% of the population if I understand the results and ballot correctly. I suspect this was intentionally done to obfuscate the real result and make the number seem greater than it really is.
Regarding splitting states, ever hear of redistricting?
It is the same in any democratic vote, however "Churchill, etc".
West Virginia was split from Virginia early in the ACW for political reasons, though the circumstances were exceptional, of course.
No the two questions were completely separate, 63% of those who voted chose to become a state(with a 80% turnout)
chaos0xomega wrote: Puerto Rico did not vote for statehood 63% of 54% of the population voted for statehood. I.E. - 34% of the population if I understand the results and ballot correctly.
You don't understand the ballot or the results.
Two questions were asked, the first asked something to the effect of 'do you want to change the status quo?' and 54% of people said yes.
A second question asked something to the effect of 'if the status quo were changed what would you like to change it to?' and 61% of people said they wanted to become an American state, 33% for a sovereign free association, and 5% for independance.
You answered the second question regardless of whether you answered the first.
I suspect this was intentionally done to obfuscate the real result and make the number seem greater than it really is.
You suspect wrong.
It is the simplest, most basic thing to ask 'do we want to change how things are right now?' and then ask a second question 'if we were to change the status quo, how would we do that?'
Doing anything else hides information. For instance, simply asking 'do you want to become an American state?' would mean the no answer would contain groups who want to maintain the status quo, and groups who want to become an independant nation.
Quebec came to mind first, but it could have been Alberta or Ontario...
I'd be all "I live in Potawatomi!" and they'd all be "What?" and I'd explain and sound smart.
no questions asked!
