Puerto Rico is voting on statehood referendum next month

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/u...statehood.html

personally, I think its time we kicked Puerto Rico out of the this country. make them independent.

As I see it, the biggest problem with Puerto Rico is they now have several generations that have grown accustom to living in what amounts to a welfare state.

They are not much different than many large US Cities that got caught up in the Lyndon B Johnson Great Society Programs. Vote for us, and we will take care of you.

At this stage, Puerto Rico does not know how to be a State. They would vote themselves Statehood Consideration while wanting to keep all of the miserable policies that resulted in their current predicament.

Then there is the political ramifications in the Mainland. If Congress Voted for allowing Puerto Rico Statehood, we would suddenly be giving the Socialist/Liberal//Progressive/Democrats two US Senators and a couple of House Of Representative Members.

Do we need that?.

thats part of that.. 2nd problem is their spanish language. most of puerto rico speak mostly spanish. not a lot maybe a quarter speak spanish.

the fact that they are a bankrupt state is reason to kick them out.

thats part of that.. 2nd problem is their spanish language. most of puerto rico speak mostly spanish. not a lot maybe a quarter speak spanish.

the fact that they are a bankrupt state is reason to kick them out. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Not only are they deep under water fiscally, but everyone should have seen it coming many years ago. Nobody cared; there were the usual political victories to be won while using other people's money to facilitate them.

The only way we should even remotely consider giving P. R. statehood is within the framework of a deal letting CA split into two states - the deep blue coastal areas and the deep red inland region. Then we'd have 4 new Senators, 2 on each side.

And 52 states - one for each card in the deck. Cool!

(Quick note: Here are a couple of downsides.. P. R., if a state, would probably get about 4 House members, maybe 5. They would most likely be reliable leftists. Assuming the likelihood that the seats lost by other states would be formerly held by a couple of people from each party, the probable net/net result would be approx. +2 for the Dems. Additionally, the rest of the US would have to assume the burden of PR's fiscal black hole - no small matter!)

Not only are they deep under water fiscally, but everyone should have seen it coming many years ago. Nobody cared; there were the usual political victories to be won while using other people's money to facilitate them.

The only way we should even remotely consider giving P. R. statehood is within the framework of a deal letting CA split into two states - the deep blue coastal areas and the deep red inland region. Then we'd have 4 new Senators, 2 on each side.

And 52 states - one for each card in the deck. Cool! Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

I could go with that.

but the house seat needs to increase to 4 seats, 435 to 439.

I could go with that.

but the house seat needs to increase to 4 seats, 435 to 439. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I edited to add the last paragraph in my previous post ("Quick note"), apparently after you quoted it and hit reply.

The House is fixed by law at a max of 435 seats, so PR's seats would come from other states.

http://history.house.gov/Historical-...t-Act-of-1929/

The would be financially better off to separate, create their own nation, start a war with the U.S., and after they lose the war the U.S. will rebuild their infrastructure.

The would be financially better off to separate, create their own nation, start a war with the U.S., and after they lose the war the U.S. will rebuild their infrastructure. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Can you say "Japan on the Car-ri-ban".

Good plan!

Can't wait to see what a nascent Puerto Rican car industry might be able to come up with!

As I see it, the biggest problem with Puerto Rico is they now have several generations that have grown accustom to living in what amounts to a welfare state.

They are not much different than many large US Cities that got caught up in the Lyndon B Johnson Great Society Programs. Vote for us, and we will take care of you.

At this stage, Puerto Rico does not know how to be a State. They would vote themselves Statehood Consideration while wanting to keep all of the miserable policies that resulted in their current predicament.

Then there is the political ramifications in the Mainland. If Congress Voted for allowing Puerto Rico Statehood, we would suddenly be giving the Socialist/Liberal//Progressive/Democrats two US Senators and a couple of House Of Representative Members.

Do we need that?. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Fuck no - but the white leftists want it, so they will shame the country into accepting them as a state, furthering our demise.

We would be better off giving them independence and cancelling their debt.

Good plan!

Can't wait to see what a nascent Puerto Rican car industry might be able to come up with! Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

Use the Clinton-Haitian Model for the "rebuilding" of Post-War PR.

I edited to add the last paragraph in my previous post ("Quick note"), apparently after you quoted it and hit reply.

The House is fixed by law at a max of 435 seats, so PR's seats would come from other states.

http://history.house.gov/Historical-...t-Act-of-1929/ Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

yes, I know. congress has to make that change.

the reason for the suggested 4 house seats is because of the 435 seat limit was present when Hawaii & Alaska became states and the seats increased temporarily to 437 which went back to 435 at the next census. this was a historical error that needs to be fixed. it was also unfair to those states that lost 2 seats when the number of seats went from 437 to 435 at the next census.

and with your proposed split of california, that is additional 2 house seats. making it 439.

(Quick note: Here are a couple of downsides.. P. R., if a state, would probably get about 4 House members, maybe 5. They would most likely be reliable leftists. Assuming the likelihood that the seats lost by other states would be formerly held by a couple of people from each party, the probable net/net result would be approx. +2 for the Dems. Additionally, the rest of the US would have to assume the burden of PR's fiscal black hole - no small matter!) Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

yes, but that is not likely PR would get 4 or 5 in this current political climate. when PR enters the union, they will get 1 or 2 seats, like Alaska & Hawaii and other states before them did.

the most number of seats that a state had at admission is 7 & 5 seats. Maine (7) and Oklahoma (5) holds that distinction. all others had 1 or 2 at admission.

NOTE: the admission tally does not include 13 founding states.

They refused to let the US marines practice military maneuvers on their deserted islands. The infrastructure supporting the practice facilities benefited the PR. Clinton allowed a referendum to dictate what happened(it wasn't/couldn't be legally binding).

The people of Puerto Rico essentially told us to F___ off, not only on this topic, but many others.

The fact that leftist can't understand that actions have consequences, and that what you are is the sum of the decisions you have made in the past needs to be rebutted.

Let them eat conch stew. Seriously.

Puerto Rico needs it's own nuclear bomb.