Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by n1 on Monday June 12 2017, @09:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the join-the-club dept.

According to Fox News:

Puerto Rico's governor announced that the U.S. territory has overwhelmingly chosen statehood in a nonbinding referendum Sunday held amid a deep economic crisis that has sparked an exodus of islanders to the U.S. mainland.

Nearly half a million votes were cast for statehood, more than 7,600 for free association/independence and nearly 6,700 for independence, according to preliminary results. The participation rate was just 23 percent with roughly 2.26 million registered voters, leading opponents to question the validity of a vote that several parties had boycotted.

Also covered by AP.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @09:55AM (30 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @09:55AM (#524238)

    What in God's name does this have to do with technology? Puerto Ricans are people and tech nerds are people too?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:04AM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:04AM (#524243)

      What in God's name does this have to do with technology?

      $120B worth of additional debt onto the federal balance sheet would affect the tech sector and every other sector.

      Puerto Ricans are people and tech nerds are people too?

      SoylentNews is people

      • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:08AM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:08AM (#524245)

        $120B worth of additional debt onto the federal balance sheet would affect the tech sector and every other sector.

        You know what else effects the tech sector? Food. We all gotta eat. Are we going to start swapping recipes now, dipshit?

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:32AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:32AM (#524256)

          Sure. I like a good roasted coward.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:43AM (#524259)

            It was my pleasure.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @02:04PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @02:04PM (#524397)

            Do you have a good recipe? they always end up a bit chewy for me

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Monday June 12 2017, @02:24PM

              by LoRdTAW (3755) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @02:24PM (#524415) Journal

              Cook low and slow.

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:09AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:09AM (#524272)

          You know what else effects the tech sector? Food. We all gotta eat.

          Yes and we would all be interested in geopolitical implications of a famine. Also in advances, regulation and IP issues around GM crops.

          Are we going to start swapping recipes now, dipshit?

          Not personally fond of shit dips but feel free to create an account and post the recipe to your journal.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:33AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:33AM (#524280)

            That was, um, that was a pretty weak comeback. I'm embarrassed for you actually.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @02:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @02:10PM (#524406)

          Yeah. In case you haven't noticed, we do that from time to time, though just in the comments.

          If there are any developments in the state of the art of the culinary sciences, I'll make sure to submit an article.

          Come to think of it, there's a new pepper that ought to be taking the world record (according to Guinness) here soon as hotter than even the Carolina reaper. I can also link a place that makes some really good tasting scorpion pepper sauce if you'd like. Had it with some chili the other day.

          I'll keep you apprised.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @01:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @01:05AM (#524748)

          A few months ago I posted my recipe for Cranberry mead here. I'm still waiting for the other half of the swap.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 12 2017, @10:07AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @10:07AM (#524244) Journal
      What in god's name does your post have to do with non sequiturs? It's like we're on the internets.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:10AM (#524247)

        Are you stupid?

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by bradley13 on Monday June 12 2017, @10:52AM (1 child)

      by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @10:52AM (#524262) Homepage Journal

      Want more tech articles? Then do your part, and send some in...

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:57PM (#524349)

        Most of the time it's just something that was already on Slashdot a day or two ago.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by krishnoid on Monday June 12 2017, @10:56AM (13 children)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Monday June 12 2017, @10:56AM (#524264)

      It's at least in part a visual design/extensibility issue -- where are you gonna put the 51st star on the flag?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by looorg on Monday June 12 2017, @11:32AM

        by looorg (578) on Monday June 12 2017, @11:32AM (#524279)

        If that is the only problem or issue you could just change the pattern again.

        https://www.usflagstore.com/american_flag_history_1776_to_present_s/2205.htm [usflagstore.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:55PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:55PM (#524390)

        Really? Changing the flag would be your reason for not letting them become a state? That's a pretty pathetic reason.

        It's not like we haven't changed the number of stars on the flag dozens of times already. We can do it again. Here are just a few suggestions for flags with >50 stars, and we can always design another.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_flags_of_the_United_States#Possible_future_designs [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @02:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @02:20PM (#524412)

          Ooh! I like the circular one. We haven't had a circular star arrangement since back in the day.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 12 2017, @04:56PM (7 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @04:56PM (#524494)

          I think it's a perfectly valid reason. 51 is a terrible, odd number. We have too many states as it is. So I propose a solution: for any new states to be admitted, we have to either remove or combine existing states, so that we don't exceed 50. This development with PR could thus be a good excuse for cleaning up our screwed-up state borders and making things more efficient and reducing administrative overhead.

          Here's a few quick fixes we could make to bring the number back down:
          1) Combine Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine into a single state (probably give a bit of south NH and ME to Massachusetts since it's a bedroom community for Boston).
          2) Eliminate Wyoming (pop. 500k) and break it apart, giving the pieces to surrounding states.
          3) Eliminate Rhode Island, combining it with Connecticut and/or Massachusetts.

          Doing all these will eliminate 4 or 5 states; we can mitigate this by breaking California and Texas in half. I'd also like to see NYC, Philly, and DC turned into city-states (and probably Boston too).

          • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday June 12 2017, @06:23PM (1 child)

            by krishnoid (1156) on Monday June 12 2017, @06:23PM (#524563)

            In that case, I totally won't plug this movie [imdb.com] that I've been seeing a bunch of Youtube ads for, and actually have no idea how good it is/n't.

            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 12 2017, @06:27PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @06:27PM (#524568)

              I fail to see what that has to do with adding new states to the union.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:26PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:26PM (#524567)

            I counter with Texas exercising it's still-valid right to break into 5 states.

            IANAHistorian, and joking of course.

            Something like that has less of a chance of becoming law then PR becoming a state, so good luck. But if so lets combine the states that are split by cardinal directions like North and South Dakota.

            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 12 2017, @06:50PM (1 child)

              by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @06:50PM (#524588)

              Something like that has less of a chance of becoming law then PR becoming a state,

              Of course, but I still think it's a good idea. The current state borders make no sense and are merely accidents of history, and end up creating "schizophrenic" states with two very different populations at each others' throats. See Virginia for example; most of the state is Republican and conservative, but the few northern VA counties are Democrat and very liberal, but also extremely populous. Internal divisions like this make state politics a mess and keep things from getting done. The same thing is going on in NY, with NYC vastly different from "upstate". Same in Pennsylvania with Philly. Same in Illinois with Chicago. These cities should be turned into city-states, with their surrounding metro areas joined with them (even if they're in different states; this means New Jersey is eliminated, and maybe CT too). This would also eliminate the problem of people living in one state and working in another, and having the mess of dealing with taxation from two states, plus it'd make public transit better since public transit is always a big mess when it crosses state lines because of political problems.

              The other problem is that states in this country vary too much in population, with each state getting the same 2 Senators. The states should be more roughly equal in population to fix this. So, for instance, if we break NYC and Philly into separate city-states (each combined with half of NJ), NYCS and PhillyS would now have I'm guessing about 10M each, but this would eliminate NYS and PA as the political juggernauts they are. The remainders of NYS and PA would still have plenty of population after this change, since upstate NY still has a bunch of cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Utica, Albany, etc.) as does PA (Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Erie, etc.) and both are geographically large with lots of rural area and small towns. Taking NoVA out of VA would cut it down in population a lot, but they could re-merge with WV to fix that.

              As for ND/SD and NC/SC, that should work for the Dakotas (they're very low-population, the new combined population would be only 1.6M), but not the Carolinas: they're just too large. NC already has 10M, and SC 5M. We don't need a state with 15M people, especially with the already-present acrimony between the RTP area and the rest. Perhaps RTP should combine with Hampton-Roads into a new state, while the rest of NC can combine with SC or maybe northern GA or southwest VA.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @07:04PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @07:04PM (#524599)

                With all the problems we see with gerrymandering I don't trust anyone to draw new state lines based on political reasons.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:34PM (#524575)

            And 49 wasn't? So we annexed Hawaii just so we could have a nice, round, 50 and no other reason at all?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:04PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:04PM (#524706)

            Boston's a city state, but not Chicago? There's an odd fantasy.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 12 2017, @02:16PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 12 2017, @02:16PM (#524407) Journal

        Ah yes, vexillography, the grand art of flag design. SN's tribute to Sheldon Cooper's "Fun with Flags."

        There's no great technical conundrum posed by placing a 51st star. The current flag has 8 rows of stars, but we could just revert to a 6-row design (as the 48-star flag had). Alternating rows of 8 and 9. 3*8+3*9=51. Easy. Done.

        Though, if you wanted to, there's all sorts of innovative designs that have been proposed over the years. (Just search for 51-star flag. I was going to link an ABC story that came up on this topic, but the amount of scripts and ads and such to make it function make it offensive to me.)

      • (Score: 1) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 12 2017, @08:23PM

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @08:23PM (#524631) Homepage Journal

        I've been thinking a lot about my flag. Let me tell you, 51 stars is fine. It's great. Because 3 lines with 17 stars in each line comes to 51 stars. My branding experts tell me 17 + 17 + 17 comes to 51. We tried 39, but 51 is testing well. Very high ratings in the 18 to 49 demo. Which is a key demo, very important. So we can have 17 stars above my face, 17 stars to the left of my face, and 17 stars to the right of my face. Making a total of 51 stars. We don't need stars underneath my face because we'll put my name there. My name, gilded underneath my face. Everything I just said, gilded. A great red, white, blue and gold flag. Got it all worked out, folks. #TrumpFlag [twitter.com] #51Stars [twitter.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:07AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:07AM (#524271)

      Whining isn't nerdish or technical or much of anything else. Just please stop.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:41AM (#524285)

        Whining isn't nerdish or technical or much of anything else.

        Neither is sucking cocks. Yet here you are.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday June 12 2017, @10:04AM (16 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday June 12 2017, @10:04AM (#524242) Journal

    Puerto Rico is likely to vote Democrat. Trump is not a democrat and will so likely block any annexing as that would skew election results.

    Interesting anyway how a small island with a great deal of autonomy manages to botch their own region such that they have to vote away their autonomy to make life workable.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday June 12 2017, @10:22AM (14 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @10:22AM (#524250) Journal

      Interesting anyway how a small island with a great deal of autonomy manages to botch their own region such that they have to vote away their autonomy to make life workable.

      As a state, they'd have significant representation in US Congress. I believe that would result in much more autonomy than as a US territory, though I doubt that would fix their problems.

      Trump is not a democrat and will so likely block any annexing as that would skew election results.

      It'd take years for any such thing to happen even in the best of cases. Trump may or may not have staying power, but he's not going to be an obstacle forever. Eventually a democrat will return to power and the conditions for entering the union could take place then.

      And Puerto Rico was annexed in 1898.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:46AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:46AM (#524261)

        Eventually a democrat will return to power

        Lol. The democrat party as the other major player in national politics is finished.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:04AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:04AM (#524269)

          I'm sure there are some bookies out there who would love to take your money.

          • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:29AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:29AM (#524278)

            I tried but they're all still busy wiping the egg off their faces from last November.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:51PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:51PM (#524342)

        John Oliver (Yeah Yeah, leftist whore and all.) did an excellent piece on exactly what is wrong with the current handling of Puerto Rico, how they got into so much debt, and how one little change in some legislation back in the 60s or 70s helped bring the current crisis around.

        Put simply they accrue debt in a way that even if other parties default, and get out of it because of US laws, Puerto Rico can still be held accountable, and unable to divest their debt through normal means that all US states recieved access to, white still having many of the financial burdens associated with being a US state, just without many of the benefits.

        I am sure someone else can provide a link, or a better discussion of the issues relating to it.

        For all of its lip service to the opposite, the US sure does have a lot of unfavorably treated colonies.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:03PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:03PM (#524355)

          John Oliver (Yeah Yeah, leftist whore and all.) did an excellent piece

          Stopped reading right there. How people in this country can get their "news" from bombastic comedians and actually delude themselves into thinking they are informed is beyond me. It reminds me of how people take perverse pride in "I just don't know computers. Tee hee". In following this drivel, you feed your idiotic grandiosity by actually uninforming yourself.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 12 2017, @03:24PM (1 child)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 12 2017, @03:24PM (#524441) Journal

            I probably shouldn't bother replying to such a post, but I think it's worth noting that the VAST majority of people are unwilling to sit down and watch or read a long news piece on a "boring" topic.

            Thus ALL "investigative reporting" shows or segments (from "60 minutes" and Frontline to TED talks) find ways of holding your attention if they're going to do a 10+ minute piece on something. Typically, they're based on "shock and awe" kind of reporting -- showing you something so surprising periodically that you keep watching. When there's gross injustice, this is often easy -- just keep "shocking" viewers every 5 minutes with some new revelation of something horrible. Often there's "human interest" elements, too, either around the injustices or just telling personal stories that are emotional in some way.

            Basically, let's face it: news is entertainment. Long segments are structured to be entertaining and to keep audience attention. Even long journalistic pieces in stuff like The New Yorker and The Atlantic often follow a structure like this. "Just the facts" gets boring unless you keep shocking or emotionally engaging the reader/viewer.

            So then you have folks like John Oliver. Rather than just employing a bunch of journalistic tricks to keep you interested, he includes comedy. You may or may not like that comedy. You may or may not like his political views. (And I frequently disagree with him in the details.) But just because he includes comedy doesn't mean he can't address "serious" issues at the same time. Sure, he applies the "shock and awe" and "emotional human interest" elements periodically too, just not exclusively to keep you entertained. Rather than putting up yet another video of an abused puppy under Policy X, he'll change it up and make a joke on Policy X periodically instead.

            There are varying degrees of "infotainment," and I agree that Oliver's schtick can be annoying at times. And it's sad that he has to "trick" people into paying attention to important issues. But it doesn't follow that his segments can't be informative. I vaguely remember watching the Puerto Rico debt piece he did, and he pretty much covered a lot of stuff that you'd find, say, in the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on it. But how many people are going to go read the Wikipedia article on Puerto Rican debt just randomly? (And yes, I know Wikipedia isn't the greatest source either, but I was looking for a quick site with an overview of major concerns on this issue; there are plenty of other internet resources, though people are even LESS likely to independently go seeking information out there.)

            • (Score: 1) by oakgrove on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:53AM

              by oakgrove (5864) on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:53AM (#524791)

              You wrote all that shit just to prove the GP's point. *slow clap*

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 12 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday June 12 2017, @04:27PM (#524474)

            When a country is in this level of political decline, only its fools and jesters dare to tell the truth. I can tell you Oliver is a more reliable source of news than Fox.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:05PM (#524357)

          Yes they are the territorial equivalent of a college student. And as such are given credit where no one else would be able to: "You have no job, no work history, no employable skills but you want $120K? OK sign here!"

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by isj on Monday June 12 2017, @03:41PM

          by isj (5249) on Monday June 12 2017, @03:41PM (#524445) Homepage

          [John Oliver / Last Week Tonight on Puerto Rico]
          I am sure someone else can provide a link,

          Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt-mpuR_QHQ [youtube.com]

          It is worth watching.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 12 2017, @03:47PM (1 child)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 12 2017, @03:47PM (#524448) Journal

          Yes, the Puerto Rican debt debacle.

          Basically, for much of the late 20th century, Puerto Rico was inexplicably exempted from random U.S. tax laws, which both made it very lucrative to business there and strongly encouraged investors to buy into PR municipal bonds. Then, in 1984, for reasons unknown to anyone in Congress today, Strom Thurmond introduced a measure that specifically removed backruptcy protection to PR from U.S. law; it was buried in a much larger bill that apparently no one noticed. Then beginning in 1996, the U.S. began removing various tax exemptions for PR over a 10-year-period, causing businesses to flee the island and the economy to falter. The government responded to the economic crisis by selling more bonds (which still had huge tax exemptions), and Wall Street investors ate them up like candy.

          Now add in one more element: the PR Constitution (which required approval from Congress, because of its territorial status) states that municipal bonds take precedence in their payment over ANY other government expenditure, including essential services.

          So, for the past decade, PR has entered a bizarre spiral of debt where it can't attract businesses anymore because it lost its exemptions, it can't restructure the debt or declare bankruptcy because for some weird reason it was specifically exempted by Congress from doing so, and it can't guarantee adequate funds for emergency services, public utilities, schools, etc. until it pays off its bond debts. When it appeals to relief from Congress just for restructuring (not a bailout), Wall Street lobbyists for investors who don't want to lose profits from bonds start calling Congressmen and running TV ads.

          Obviously a lot of mismanagement happened in Puerto Rico, BUT a lot of this has also been exacerbated by bizarre exemptions/incentives and shifts in U.S. policy regarding the island. Last year, there was a deal of sorts [wikipedia.org] approved by the federal government which can help with debt structuring, though various aspects of it are controversial.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @09:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @09:24PM (#524666)

            Yet another scam perpetrated by an elected official. Of course it was done to Puerto Rico, they are the red headed step child of the US that no one pays attention to. If this was any other state you can bet a lot of things would be reversed or fixed. Yay wallstreet scamming the public! Capitalism without the capital!

      • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday June 12 2017, @04:06PM

        by EvilSS (1456) on Monday June 12 2017, @04:06PM (#524461)
        And as a state they will also have to start paying federal personal income tax, which they currently do not have to pay as citizens of a US territory.
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday June 12 2017, @12:05PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @12:05PM (#524301)

      Some of that is minor case of Trump Derangement Syndrome in that you have to get past Congress first

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union [wikipedia.org]

      In the case of PR, given that it is PR, I could see the situation going to the Supreme Court regardless who's prez or who's running congress, so essentially you'll have to get past all three branches.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:03AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:03AM (#524268)

    Puerto Ricans shoot themselves in the foot with a high-tech machine gun attached to an orange drone artificially intelligent enough to twit (yes, that twat)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:06AM (#524270)

      >nonbinding referendum

      D.C. has a better chance of getting statehood. Sometime around 2050.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @11:17AM (12 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @11:17AM (#524274) Journal

    Or not so finally? This isn't the first time Puerto Rico's statehood has come up. It just never happens though. I think the problem is, the Ricans who really want to be American get tired of waiting, and move to the US. That leaves a lower percentage of American-minded Ricans behind, so the push never really takes place.

    If we put an end to Puerto Ricans moving to the mainland, would that push Puerto Rico into becoming a state, or just push them away?

    I really don't know that the US would gain a whole lot, either way. But, what we have is pretty damned silly. "Yeah, Puerto Rico is ours, but we don't really want it very much, so we'll just leave it lying around, and neglect it a whole lot." We deserve better than that, and so do they.

    Would they be any worse off, if they had been treated like a banana republic all of these years? At least when a new dictator takes over, he abolishes the old debts somehow.

    --
    #Hillarygropedme
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:13PM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:13PM (#524307)

      They lack the culture of America, and should therefore be given independence as their own country.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:19PM (#524369)

        They will never choose this as it would mean financial collapse, as opposed to current form of financial slavery a la Greece.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:20PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:20PM (#524371)

        American culture?

        What exactly comprises 'American culture'? Guns, bigotry, racism, xenophobia, bullying and perpetual warmongering?

        In that case you're right, I guess. All PR has is the guns.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:28PM (#524374)

          You're not making any American feel bad.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:53PM (#524388)

          What exactly comprises 'American culture'?

          Pointing at little bitches like you and laughing.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:45PM (#524382)

        Oh come on, they even modeled they're flag after Captain America. How much more American can they get?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @02:23PM (5 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @02:23PM (#524414) Journal

        Louisiana also lacked the culture of the United States. But, we bought it from France, broke it up, and admitted the segments into the union, one at a time. Today, the Louisiana purchase is as "American" as any other part of America.

        What do you even mean by "lacks the culture"? Is it because they are genetically non-white? Is it the black and latino ethnicity that makes them "lacking"? Does brown skin make them lacking? I can't think of any other standards by which their culture is really lacking.

        Maybe their culture would improve, in your sight, if a lot of them had died in America's wars?

        https://www.army.mil/article/15498/Puerto_Rico_veterans_honored/ [army.mil]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Puerto_Rican_military_personnel [wikipedia.org]

        http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/voices-too-many-puerto-rico-s-veterans-are-moving-away-n764676 [nbcnews.com]
        There are currently some 330,000 veterans and some 35,000 Puerto Ricans in active duty service. The Puerto Rico Army/Air National Guard and the Reserve components represent another 10,000 Puerto Ricans in uniform. At least, 375,000 Puerto Ricans are veterans or are still wearing the uniform. That is without counting the several thousand serving in the national guard units of the 50 federated states of the Union. Puerto Ricans are the only Latino group over-represented in the military.

        --
        #Hillarygropedme
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @03:07PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @03:07PM (#524432)

          Puerto Ricans are the only Latino group over-represented in the military

          A quick look at the demographics shows that basically every race/ethnicity group is under-represented except Black Americans.

          It is interesting to look at the further breakdown by sex, which shows that most non-white groups have a larger proportion of women (presumably due to the lack of white women serving).

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/214869/share-of-active-duty-enlisted-women-and-men-in-the-us-military/ [statista.com]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#Racial_and_ethnic_categories [wikipedia.org]

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @05:10PM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @05:10PM (#524505) Journal

            I suppose that we could dig into that, to first find out how accurate the Wiki's numbers are. Then, we could bounce around what all those numbers mean.

            Looking at the statista page, it appears that black WOMEN may be over represented. Black men, at 17%, are near the percentage of black men in the US population. I would expect that probably fluctuates slightly from year to year.

            Now, taking the quote into context, the article I cited claims that Puerto Ricans are the only group of Hispanics that are over represented in the military. It makes no claim that Hispanics are over represented - it only claims that Puerto Ricans are. All other groups of Hispanics might be UNDER represented, but the Puerto Ricans are grossly over represented, and we would still get a result that shows that ALL Hispanic people are under represented.

            I wonder though - why are there almost twice as many black women in the service as we might expect? And, why are there proportionately fewer white women than the other races? Am I interested enough to dig into that question? Hmmmm . . . probably not.

            --
            #Hillarygropedme
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @07:28PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @07:28PM (#524606)

              I didn't mean to try to refute your point.

              I was simply pointing out that demographic groups being underrepresented in the military seems to be the norm. Specifying that Peurto Ricians are the only Latino group overrepresented needlessly limits their exceptional degree of service to their ethnic group (or tries to paint other Latinos as unpatriotic).

              The comment about women was just because the results are so strikingly different.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @08:38PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @08:38PM (#524634)

              Maybe lot of Puerto Ricans fall for the citizenship meme, because they don't realize they have de facto citizen rights?

              Who knows.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @06:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @06:32AM (#524810)

          The most obvious problem is Spanish. We are already having a bit of a disaster; we shouldn't make it worse. A country has problems with unity if there is more than one language. The economy suffers too; you can never reach your full potential with all the overhead of translation and the friction in trade.

          Another big problem is that they don't really endorse a competitive market with minimal government. I don't quite want to call them communist... but they are too close for comfort.

          Another big problem is that the better workers have already left the island. The people who remain are lazy, elderly, uneducated, dumb, and disabled. At least "lazy" counts as culture, and the rest is mighty bad too.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:46PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @12:46PM (#524338)

    Why didn't they choose Canada? We'd love to finally have a province where it would be warm in the winter and still get our Timmie's fix! Is it because the moment we'd step onto the beach in our swim wear that we'd create a blinding light from the sun reflecting off our pasty white skin that would burn up the island? Come on, eh! They'd get free health care, and we're really nice...at least most of us are.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:05PM (#524358)

      Why not Canada?

      They've seen how Trudeau practically breaks his neck sucking every Muslim cock he can find. And they just aren't down with that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:15PM (#524365)

      Maybe because they're already a US Territory?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:47PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @01:47PM (#524383)

    The summary is misleading. Sure, only 23 percent of people voted, but how does that make it illegitimate? It's not great numbers, but it's enough to be statistically significant. You didn't vote? Fine, your vote won't count. Don't like it? Then you should have voted.

    Now lets look at the numbers of those who did vote. Half a million voted statehood, yet barely more than that even voted at all. Based on the numbers I see it looks like 96% voted statehood. Can you really shrug that off?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 12 2017, @02:58PM (1 child)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 12 2017, @02:58PM (#524429) Journal

      Just for some perspective (I'm not arguing one way or another on how this vote should be read in PR):

      -- Brexit is occurring because 37.4% of voters were in favor of it. (71% turnout from electorate, 51.89% voting in favor)
      -- Donald Trump was elected as President with 27.7% of eligible US voters. (60.2% turnout from voting eligible population, 46% voting for Trump)
      -- Puerto Ricans have voted for statehood with 22.3% of eligible voters. (23% turnout, with 97% voting for statehood)
      -- In the previous 2012 referendum on statehood, Puerto Ricans voted for statehood with 34.7% of registered voters (78% turnout, 61.16% voting of those who cast a vote for choice chose statehood; the ballot [wikipedia.org] had two questions and was confusing, leading to half a million blank ballots on the question, so results were ignored by Congress)

      So, based on the 2012 referendum, the Puerto Rican people have already more strongly supported statehood than the U.S. population supported Trump in 2016, and nearly as much as the UK population supported Brexit, if you're looking at percentage of electorate.

      This 2017 referendum had a significantly lower turnout, but a much more decisive vote breakdown. Note that interpretation is complicated because of a long history of vague ballots in Puerto Rico. Statehood initiatives in 1967 and 1993 explicitly had a "commonwealth" option (Puerto Rico's current status). The 1998 referendum had no "Commonwealth choice" and those who did vote for a choice voted strongly in favor of statehood. But there was a "none of the above" choice, which was interpreted as meaning "remain as commonwealth," and that garnered slightly more votes than statehood. The 2012 referendum was complicated, because it seemed to try to make an end run around the "commonwealth" question by first asking if voters wanted to remain in "current status," which majority said "No, NOT remain in current status" to. But the second question asked what status was preferred, and as noted above, a large number of ballots were simply left blank, leading many to assume these were "commonwealth" supporters.

      The current referendum is less open to interpretation, because it did explicitly allow a "current status" option, which only 1.3% of voters chose. On the other hand, various wordings of the ballot apparently made assertions about the sovereignty of Puerto Rico that various political parties don't accept (e.g., the "current status" option had an explanation that recognized the plenary powers of Congress over PR, which is currently true under the U.S. Constitution, but Puerto Ricans view the wording of the ballot to imply they're basically a "colony"), so they viewed participation as a tacit acknowledgement of those assertions.

      It's all a mess.

      • (Score: 2) by ese002 on Monday June 12 2017, @10:35PM

        by ese002 (5306) on Monday June 12 2017, @10:35PM (#524694)

        This is the other problem. The referendum is non-binding thus many will not take it seriously, leading to the poor turnout.

        IMHO, what should be done is that Congress should approve Puerto Rican statehood under the condition that another referendum passes.

        This referendum would be binding and irrevocable. Congress has already approved so if it passes, the deal is done. Congress could even include a extra conditions like a 2/3 majority and minimum participation rate of eligible voters. This should put an end to any ambiguities.

        Of course the odds of anything so clear and reasonable coming out of this Congress are about nil.

        Tangentially, I think choosing statehood just so PR can declare bankruptcy is a bit ridiculous even if congressional meddling is partly responsible for the situation.

  • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday June 12 2017, @01:49PM (4 children)

    by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @01:49PM (#524384)

    Then begin to blame the US for all of their problems.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @03:02PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @03:02PM (#524430)

      Begin to blame !?!?
      The US is already the cause of their biggest problems.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @09:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @09:26PM (#524672)

        You're replying to a conservative near-bigot. I think we need to popularize some word for people who aren't quite racist, not quite bigoted, but have some stupid beliefs in their head about others likely stemming from close proximity to real bigots / racists.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:16AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:16AM (#524785)

        Yeah, it's never the stupid fucking bankrupt loser's fault. MUST be rich old whitey to blame!! Only possible option! Throw out some vague hypothetical racism accusations out there to cover your tracks, then shut the browser window, secure in your own personal victory.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @03:18PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @03:18PM (#524950)

          Oh the irony of your total cluelessness.
          The biggest problem is that they can't declare bankruptcy, or even restructure their debt. All because your congress made a law specifically to stop them, for "reasons".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @04:22PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @04:22PM (#524469)

    Do the 50 states get to vote if we even want Puerto Rico? It sounds like all we get is another destitute welfare state.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday June 12 2017, @05:04PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @05:04PM (#524502)

      You had your chance to vote back in 1898 when Puerto Rico was annexed as a US Territory. Remember, "you break it, you bought it". Don't take on responsibilities you're not willing to follow through on.

    • (Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Monday June 12 2017, @05:09PM

      by WalksOnDirt (5854) on Monday June 12 2017, @05:09PM (#524504) Journal

      The climate is nice, though. Think of as the Hawaii of the east. I hope they do become a state, but I think it will take a some time.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:12PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:12PM (#524508)

      Yes, the states get to vote. All 50 US states are represented in the US Congress, and Congress decides whether or not to admit new states into the union.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @11:43AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @11:43AM (#524861)

        Yes, the states get to vote. All 50 US states are represented in the US Congress, and Congress decides whether or not to admit new states into the union.

        Well, that would work better if congress actually represented "The People".

(1)