Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.

I'd be okay with that...

Don't see why they wouldn't...

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.

It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.

I suppose a bargain could be reached to split those seats 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans for the first term. The problem for Democrats is that PR currently enjoys some pretty sweet benefits as a US Territory which would go away as soon as Statehood becomes official. The change in economy coupled with the fact that it isn't the tourist Mecca that Hawaii is could push PR down a very different path.

Why should there be a deal? If it becomes a state it should be able to elect their own senators and representatives to be sworn in on the day statehood becomes effective.

You should really look up the history behind States that were admitted after the Union was formed. There were often requirements beyond what the people in the territories wanted. When Statehood was being considered for Utah, the Democrats were hesitant because recent territorial elections didn't go in their favor. A compromise had to be made that Utah not be admitted until after the current congressional term which delayed Statehood by four years. Most western States were admitted via Enabling Acts which spelled out the terms and conditions under which those territories were granted Statehood. It was an Enabling Act that prohibited polygamy in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Nevada was forced to abolish slavery. Nebraska had to redo their proposed Constitution because suffrage only applied to White men (this was in 1866 after the Civil War). Suggesting that representation be initially appointed and as part of a power sharing agreement isn't too far fetched an idea.

For something a little more comparable with PR's situation, Wyoming's Statehood was opposed by Democrats not wanting to see more power shift to the Republicans (the reverse situation with PR) so they objected to Wyoming's article 6 that granted women equal rights (suffrage). How the Republicans handle PR's request for Statehood will be interesting to see. Like the Democrats during Wyoming's admission process, today's Republicans don't want to simply hand their opponents power on a silver platter. The problem for the Republicans is that they are desperate to make inroads with Hispanics so opposing PR's Statehood due to party affiliation issues could be a political disaster from the start. Then there is the massive PR debt and Congressional brinkmanship that's been going on these past few years - ugly stuff all around. When an Enabling Act is drafted for PR, it will be interesting to see the compromises involved.

Hmm... I'm going to miss Obama's general classiness. That "Don't boo, vote." statement increased my already considerable respect for the man.

...Too bad Democrats still didn't vote.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.

It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.

Somehow, I don't see "Oh no, people will get representation, we have to stop it!!!" going over too well with the American people... It's not like Puerto Rican's couldn't vote if they just moved to Florida or something either.

It doesn't really matter how badly it would go over with the American people. The GOP could find some way to block PR from becoming a state, and no matter the public outrage, 60 million Republican voters will still show up on election day and, despite their outrage, loyally vote Republican. Because who else are they going to vote for, Democrats?

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea.
I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?

It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.

Not really because they are the party of doing whatever they want. They win elections and change laws as they please. In this they are an actual political party, just an awful one. The Democrats by contrast are so bad at politics that they make compromises without getting anything in return.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.

Not really because they are the party of doing whatever they want. They win elections and change laws as they please. In this they are an actual political party, just an awful one. The Democrats by contrast are so bad at politics that they make compromises without getting anything in return.

What are these 'compromise' examples are you seeing?

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.

Not really because they are the party of doing whatever they want. They win elections and change laws as they please. In this they are an actual political party, just an awful one. The Democrats by contrast are so bad at politics that they make compromises without getting anything in return.

What are these 'compromise' examples are you seeing?

They completely fethed up getting rid of HB2 in Charlotte in return for repealing trans protection ordinance.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.

It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.

I suppose a bargain could be reached to split those seats 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans for the first term. The problem for Democrats is that PR currently enjoys some pretty sweet benefits as a US Territory which would go away as soon as Statehood becomes official. The change in economy coupled with the fact that it isn't the tourist Mecca that Hawaii is could push PR down a very different path.

Why should there be a deal? If it becomes a state it should be able to elect their own senators and representatives to be sworn in on the day statehood becomes effective.

You should really look up the history behind States that were admitted after the Union was formed. There were often requirements beyond what the people in the territories wanted. When Statehood was being considered for Utah, the Democrats were hesitant because recent territorial elections didn't go in their favor. A compromise had to be made that Utah not be admitted until after the current congressional term which delayed Statehood by four years. Most western States were admitted via Enabling Acts which spelled out the terms and conditions under which those territories were granted Statehood. It was an Enabling Act that prohibited polygamy in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Nevada was forced to abolish slavery. Nebraska had to redo their proposed Constitution because suffrage only applied to White men (this was in 1866 after the Civil War). Suggesting that representation be initially appointed and as part of a power sharing agreement isn't too far fetched an idea.

For something a little more comparable with PR's situation, Wyoming's Statehood was opposed by Democrats not wanting to see more power shift to the Republicans (the reverse situation with PR) so they objected to Wyoming's article 6 that granted women equal rights (suffrage). How the Republicans handle PR's request for Statehood will be interesting to see. Like the Democrats during Wyoming's admission process, today's Republicans don't want to simply hand their opponents power on a silver platter. The problem for the Republicans is that they are desperate to make inroads with Hispanics so opposing PR's Statehood due to party affiliation issues could be a political disaster from the start. Then there is the massive PR debt and Congressional brinkmanship that's been going on these past few years - ugly stuff all around. When an Enabling Act is drafted for PR, it will be interesting to see the compromises involved.

This.

Granting statehood should be simple but won't be. It will be conditional. A new state means another looses a seat in the House and two more seats in the Senate (the later is a huge deal as well given the issues that will likely concern PR in federal politics). It changes the electoral college map. A new state means a new state of affairs for national politics, and political parties tend to like status quo until the status quo becomes disadvantageous. I don't see the Democrats opposing PR's statehood, but the Republicans likely will for obvious reasons. The only way it will go through is if the two parties achieve terms on the matter.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.

It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.

I suppose a bargain could be reached to split those seats 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans for the first term. The problem for Democrats is that PR currently enjoys some pretty sweet benefits as a US Territory which would go away as soon as Statehood becomes official. The change in economy coupled with the fact that it isn't the tourist Mecca that Hawaii is could push PR down a very different path.

Why should there be a deal? If it becomes a state it should be able to elect their own senators and representatives to be sworn in on the day statehood becomes effective.

You should really look up the history behind States that were admitted after the Union was formed. There were often requirements beyond what the people in the territories wanted. When Statehood was being considered for Utah, the Democrats were hesitant because recent territorial elections didn't go in their favor. A compromise had to be made that Utah not be admitted until after the current congressional term which delayed Statehood by four years. Most western States were admitted via Enabling Acts which spelled out the terms and conditions under which those territories were granted Statehood. It was an Enabling Act that prohibited polygamy in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Nevada was forced to abolish slavery. Nebraska had to redo their proposed Constitution because suffrage only applied to White men (this was in 1866 after the Civil War). Suggesting that representation be initially appointed and as part of a power sharing agreement isn't too far fetched an idea.

For something a little more comparable with PR's situation, Wyoming's Statehood was opposed by Democrats not wanting to see more power shift to the Republicans (the reverse situation with PR) so they objected to Wyoming's article 6 that granted women equal rights (suffrage). How the Republicans handle PR's request for Statehood will be interesting to see. Like the Democrats during Wyoming's admission process, today's Republicans don't want to simply hand their opponents power on a silver platter. The problem for the Republicans is that they are desperate to make inroads with Hispanics so opposing PR's Statehood due to party affiliation issues could be a political disaster from the start. Then there is the massive PR debt and Congressional brinkmanship that's been going on these past few years - ugly stuff all around. When an Enabling Act is drafted for PR, it will be interesting to see the compromises involved.

The thing with Puerto Rico, though, is that the majority of it's population have historically rejected statehood until a few years ago. On the other hand, it will be quite a legacy for any president to admit a new state, and I thought Obama would have been the one to back in 2012.

I doubt PR will achieve statehood soon even if people there start seriously pushing for it. Especially given that PR's economic woes are pretty much the sole fault of really wonky laws regarding its relationship to the United States, statehood will likely get support as a solution to the territories financial woes.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea.
I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?

Gotta love it. They get voted in on a "Drain the Swamp" mandate and the first thing the Republicans do is add more swamp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.

Not really because they are the party of doing whatever they want. They win elections and change laws as they please. In this they are an actual political party, just an awful one. The Democrats by contrast are so bad at politics that they make compromises without getting anything in return.

What are these 'compromise' examples are you seeing?

The Affordable Care Act was built on the Republicans proposal for Healthcare. The Democrats hoped by doing that they could get bipartisan support. If they knew they would be going alone, then the Democratic version would look quite a bit different.

The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.

Rosebuddy wrote:
The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.

Is this serious or sarcastic?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.

Is this serious or sarcastic?

How would that possibly work as sarcasm? Have you seen the massive political losses the Democratic Party is taking and have been taking for a decade? Disgust is the only appropriate reaction.

As I've said before, Trump is known to be supportive of PR joining the Union and I think it will definitely happen.

Why? Because of vanity and prestige.

Trump would love to say: look, me being President is good for the USA because other people are happy to join us. That's the vanity part.

For the prestige, in these uncertain times, it would boost the image of the USA worldwide to have people actively wanting to be part of it.

It's a win win for the USA and Trump.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.

Is this serious or sarcastic?

How would that possibly work as sarcasm? Have you seen the massive political losses the Democratic Party is taking and have been taking for a decade? Disgust is the only appropriate reaction.

Honestly, I was so flabbergasted that what you said could be serious that I defaulted to doubt. If you're serious I don't have anything else to say, we're just too far apart to have common ground.

NinthMusketeer wrote:Honestly, I was so flabbergasted that what you said could be serious that I defaulted to doubt. If you're serious I don't have anything else to say, we're just too far apart to have common ground.

The DNC threw everything they had behind Hillary Clinton (and Sanders and downtickets under the bus), who then lost to Donald Trump. They've abandoned everything except for the office of the president and now don't even have that. The Republicans are free to implement whatever policies they feel like and are a hair's width away from being able to change the constitution. Trans protections, anti-discrimination laws and voting rights are on their way out. Things are looking dire and you think that loathing the Democrats for their unwillingness to fight is simply unimaginable.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/daily-stormer-fascism-racist-website-whitefish-montana-jewish-people-andrew-anglin-richard-spencer-a7504646.html

Extremist website insists armed march against Jewish people in Montana will go ahead

..2017 is shaping up to be an absolute corker already .

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea.
I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?

It's interesting that places like CNN and the BBC are running this as their big banner article on their websites, and even Fox News is running it with a practically identical headline...but as a smaller side story... behind how Assange is saying that Obama is trying to weaken trump to distract from hacked emails...


We are so...so screwed...

Well, the world will not get better with Trump.
He still looks like having no clue. Putin may become his best friend or already is.

Pence is just as frightening to me with his theocratic views.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.

I'm all for it. They can pay US taxes now! Just like I'm all for gay marriage. They can pay their marriage penalty taxes, too! See, tax generation right there!

Fiscal Conservatism for the win!

 Vash108 wrote:
Pence is just as frightening to me with his theocratic views.

While I generally agree, I'm trying to avoid using the "T-word", since too many people stick to the old textbook definition of it. Best to just say Pence does not respect the intent of the separation of church and state.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea.
I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?

It's interesting that places like CNN and the BBC are running this as their big banner article on their websites, and even Fox News is running it with a practically identical headline...but as a smaller side story... behind how Assange is saying that Obama is trying to weaken trump to distract from hacked emails...


We are so...so screwed...

It does somewhat set the tone when one of the first things this new House will be doing is voting to allow itself more freedom to behave badly. The GOP leadership is against it, to their credit. I wonder how many of those who are for it are new/newish members who rode the Trump Wave into office?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

It does somewhat set the tone when one of the first things this new House will be doing is voting to allow itself more freedom to behave badly. The GOP leadership is against it, to their credit. I wonder how many of those who are for it are new/newish members who rode the Trump Wave into office?

Has the new congress been seated yet? If not, new members from the 'Trump Wave' won't have much to do with this....

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
Pence is just as frightening to me with his theocratic views.

While I generally agree, I'm trying to avoid using the "T-word", since too many people stick to the old textbook definition of it. Best to just say Pence does not respect the intent of the separation of church and state.

At this point I am calling it like I see it.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3249488-Goodlatte-OCE-Amendment-to-House-Rules.html

page 5, line 21 +

.... Bars the ethics office from contacting law enforcement if they identify a crime.....

...

Know your place peasants !

Yeah, aren't they stopping a bunch of oversight departments?

 CptJake wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

It does somewhat set the tone when one of the first things this new House will be doing is voting to allow itself more freedom to behave badly. The GOP leadership is against it, to their credit. I wonder how many of those who are for it are new/newish members who rode the Trump Wave into office?

Has the new congress been seated yet? If not, new members from the 'Trump Wave' won't have much to do with this....

The new House that is sworn in today will be the one to actually vote on it, the old one just started it.

An informed citizenry is America's best defence against any dodgy dealings on Capitol Hill.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Very wise words.