• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC to Make Senate 'More Diverse'?

Do You Support Statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC to Make Senate 'More Diverse'?

  • Total voters
    45
truthatallcost said:
Surprisingly, some high profile academics have come out in favor of the NYT opinion piece idea, such as Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. Apparently the diversification process isn't happening fast enough for some people, and it's time to radically transform the USA anyway possible.

Do You Support Statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC to Make the Senate 'More Diverse'?
Click to expand...

No, I don't support it for reasons of the false diversity narrative. Them becoming a state should be on it's own merits, not based on some imaginary racial quota, which is racist itself. The only requirement that I have is that they have to convince one of the other territories to join because 51 is just not an acceptable number of states.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
No NO NO...a thousand times no.
Click to expand...

We already have 3 states, Hawaii, California &New Mexico now dominated by minorities that's enough diversity for me.
How about the Washington DC vote in the 2016 election:
clinton---- 92.8%---- 282,830
trump-------4.2%-------12,723

We don't need that
 
"SAN JUAN, P.R. — With schools shuttered, pensions at risk and the island under the authority of an oversight board in New York City, half a million Puerto Ricans voted overwhelmingly on Sunday to become America’s 51st state, in a flawed election most voters sat out."

the bigger question to be asked is "why on EARTH would we WANT to make them the 51st state?" The only rationale ANYONE was giving to advocate FOR Statehood is so that the US could assume all their debt and carry all their financial burdens.
 
Phys251 said:
DC has long deserved a voting representative in the House. Don't see why that would be controversial, as House votes are rarely decided by one vote.

Senate would be a stickier matter, however.
Click to expand...

Most folks could live with that, I suspect; however, I think D.C. was kept "neutral" for good reasons, and it would be a tough sell to change its status now, imo.
 
Praxas said:
/yawn watching you get triggered is it’s own reward. :lamo In your entire tantrum of comments did you not address how Puerto Rico alone would take over the government from republicans. But please continue stomping your feet at brown people.
Click to expand...

LOL. I've been sitting back eating popcorn for two years watching the left get triggered more and more every day. They can't be beat when it comes to being triggered. The Kavanaugh confirmation was the ultimate being triggered but I'm sure the left will come up with something new. And, I love it when Trump purposely does things just to trigger the left. Their reactions are priceless.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
California will never split, and neither will Texas, or Florida.
Wyoming? Oh well, go ahead, and then each half gets three cows. Hoo boy.
Click to expand...

Just as Puerto Rico and DC won't be states for a very, very long time, if ever. As far as Wyoming goes, that's the point. Each cow gets two senators, Republican senators.
 
Although I do not personally like the idea of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state, fair is fair.

So if P.R. votes to become a state, then that decision should be respected.

Don't forget: The United States got P.R. because of a war that it started with pathetic Spain.

So let's man/woman up and accept the consequences.
 
phattonez said:
It's nothing more than a blatant push to get more Democrats in the Senate and House.
Click to expand...

That's what it's all about isn't it? The Republican party can't compete with Democrats when it comes to minorities, so obviously that's the fault of minorities.
 
Moderate Right said:
Just as Puerto Rico and DC won't be states for a very, very long time, if ever. As far as Wyoming goes, that's the point. Each cow gets two senators, Republican senators.
Click to expand...

That's all that counts! Republicans can't get minorities to vote for them, so we must make sure they don't get to vote!
 
truthatallcost said:
Surprisingly, some high profile academics have come out in favor of the NYT opinion piece idea, such as Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. Apparently the diversification process isn't happening fast enough for some people, and it's time to radically transform the USA anyway possible.

Do You Support Statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC to Make the Senate 'More Diverse'?
Click to expand...

I support statehood, but I don't think diversity has anything to do with it.
 
rocket88 said:
That's all that counts! Republicans can't get minorities to vote for them, so we must make sure they don't get to vote!
Click to expand...

LOL. We were talking about the Democrats trying to make new states, merely for the purpose of regaining control because voters have voted in a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House.
 
"More diverse" has no bearing on anything. More simply put, they're an American territory, Puerto Ricans are American citizens, and they pay taxes. We have a historical thing concerning taxation without representation.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. We were talking about the Democrats trying to make new states, merely for the purpose of regaining control because voters have voted in a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House.
Click to expand...

No worries. Republican-controlled states can just purge more voters from the registries to make sure there's no threat of them ever going Democrat.
 
Cardinal said:
No worries. Republican-controlled states can just purge more voters from the registries to make sure there's no threat of them ever going Democrat.
Click to expand...

That's just a partisan talking point. Pretty much no voter who wants to vote would be purged. They only purge people who have not voted in a very long time and it would include both Democrats and Republicans. Either they are dead or moved or something else, including they just don't want to vote anymore. Anyone who is eligible and wants to vote are always able to vote. Very few would actually have to re-register. Almost no one.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's just a partisan talking point. Pretty much no voter who wants to vote would be purged. They only purge people who have not voted in a very long time and it would include both Democrats and Republicans. Either they are dead or moved or something else, including they just don't want to vote anymore. Anyone who is eligible and wants to vote are always able to vote. Very few would actually have to re-register. Almost no one.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the part of the constitution that says that if a citizen hasn't voted in a while he loses his right to vote.
 
Cardinal said:
I must have missed the part of the constitution that says that if a citizen hasn't voted in a while he loses his right to vote.
Click to expand...

Everyone everywhere purges old names from their registries. It would be foolish for governments not to do so. Keeping dead or moved people on voter registries forever would be stupid and a waste of several different things. As I said, almost no one who really wanted to vote would be purged. And the purged would include both Democrats and Republicans.
 
truthatallcost said:
There was a problem with voter suppression or lack of turnout.
Click to expand...

The vote took place and everyone was free to participate. People not voting isn’t a problem for tabulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Moderate Right said:
That's just a partisan talking point. Pretty much no voter who wants to vote would be purged. They only purge people who have not voted in a very long time and it would include both Democrats and Republicans. Either they are dead or moved or something else, including they just don't want to vote anymore. Anyone who is eligible and wants to vote are always able to vote. Very few would actually have to re-register. Almost no one.
Click to expand...

They just purged a bunch of Native Americans in North Dakota. See, the law requires a physical address, but the post office won't deliver in a lot of rural rservations, so they get all their mail at PO boxes. Now they can't prove residence with a utility bill because those are sent to boxes. So now they can't vote.
 
Moderate Right said:
Everyone everywhere purges old names from their registries. It would be foolish for governments not to do so. Keeping dead or moved people on voter registries forever would be stupid and a waste of several different things. As I said, almost no one who really wanted to vote would be purged. And the purged would include both Democrats and Republicans.
Click to expand...

See? If you wipe your ass with Democracy then any rationalization is good enough for kicking registered Democrats off the voting rolls.

We'll just ignore the fact that you were whining like a little bitch when inconveniencing people known to vote Republican was proposed. :lol:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/273137-modest-proposal-eliminating-election-fraud-w-40-a-7.html
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. We were talking about the Democrats trying to make new states, merely for the purpose of regaining control because voters have voted in a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House.
Click to expand...

Then why are you concerned? Can't you get blacks and Puerto Ricans to vote for you?
 
rocket88 said:
They just purged a bunch of Native Americans in North Dakota. See, the law requires a physical address, but the post office won't deliver in a lot of rural rservations, so they get all their mail at PO boxes. Now they can't prove residence with a utility bill because those are sent to boxes. So now they can't vote.
Click to expand...

No matter what you say, voter databases need to be purged from time to time. Find a better system if you want but keeping dead people and people who have moved in the databases forever is just plain stupid. And, people who vote don't get purged, even if they have a P.O. Box. Only people who haven't voted in a long time get purged.
 
Moderate Right said:
No matter what you say, voter databases need to be purged from time to time. Find a better system if you want but keeping dead people and people who have moved in the databases forever is just plain stupid. And, people who vote don't get purged, even if they have a P.O. Box. Only people who haven't voted in a long time get purged.
Click to expand...

Keeping dead people on the rolls is dumb. Keeping living people on the rolls is not.
 
rocket88 said:
That's what it's all about isn't it? The Republican party can't compete with Democrats when it comes to minorities, so obviously that's the fault of minorities.
Click to expand...
You mean there's one party that represents the interests of the American people and another party that imports people to ignore those interests, and you have a problem with the former?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
rocket88 said:
Keeping dead people on the rolls is dumb. Keeping living people on the rolls is not.
Click to expand...

If you haven't voted once in 16 years it probably means you aren't going to vote in the next 16 years either. There's a reason why registered voters don't vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom