Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, get rid of the D-R party duopoly and presto, false dichotomy averted.
This whole "think of the balance" is defending the indefensible, i.e. systemic disenfranchisement of fellow US citizens for the sake of political expediency and maintaining the position attained by those annexed the week before (aka NIMBYism aka pulling the ladder up). Continentals are such entitled cowards.
Well, get rid of the D-R party duopoly and presto, false dichotomy averted.
This whole "think of the balance" is defending the indefensible, i.e. systemic disenfranchisement of fellow US citizens for the sake of political expediency and maintaining the position attained by those annexed the week before (aka NIMBYism aka pulling the ladder up). Continentals are such entitled cowards.
How do you propose you "get rid of" the two parties? You'd have to change the constitution.... right? Change comes via the voting booth, not decree.
How do you propose you "get rid of" the two parties? You'd have to change the constitution.... right? Change comes via the voting booth, not decree.
Don't be so literal. I meant introduce third parties, not eliminate parties. It was a rhetorical suggestion anyways.
As to your last sentence, lol thanks for the adult bed time story. There will be no change via "voting" anything until Buckley v Valeo gets overturned. The rest is all jogging in place and the "appearance of choice" in our political system. Most people don't even understand the non-democratic nature of our systems of government (Electoral college, gerrymandering, PACs, astroturfing, Citizens united et al), let alone the degree to which even the biggest grass root upswell gets quickly snuffed by the right allocation of corporate money and the whipping of the trojan-horsing so-called representatives into lockstep to do the bidding of the capital class.
Don't be so literal. I meant introduce third parties, not eliminate parties. It was a rhetorical suggestion anyways.
As to your last sentence, lol thanks for the adult bed time story. There will be no change via "voting" anything until Buckley v Valeo gets overturned. The rest is all jogging in place and the "appearance of choice" in our political system. Most people don't even understand the non-democratic nature of our systems of government (Electoral college, gerrymandering, PACs, astroturfing, Citizens united et al), let alone the degree to which even the biggest grass root upswell gets quickly snuffed by the right allocation of corporate money and the whipping of the trojan-horsing so-called representatives into lockstep to do the bidding of the capital class.
Democracy is like making sausage. I guess you would prefer a benevolent dictator?
That's exactly why the GOP is opposed to PR gaining statehood. Mitch McConnell said that as long as he controls the Senate, statehood will never happen.
I think it's ridiculous to deny statehood based on political affiliation.
If they vote for statehood, the won't get it.
If they vote for independence, they most likely WILL get it.
Neither is gonna happen anytime soon, if ever.
Y A W N.. why not merge with the Dominican Republic?
If they vote for statehood, the won't get it.
If they vote for independence, they most likely WILL get it.
Neither is gonna happen anytime soon, if ever.
Y A W N.. why not merge with the Dominican Republic?
Till then let sleeping dogs lie.
Lets take away voting rights for Republican states!
Washington dc was part of Maryland. The only real purpose for creating a new state for it would be to create more D votes. PR has a more legitimate argument for statehood.
Regularly electing a republican administration would probably help their chances though there's an open question.
Mostly status is not just disenfranchisement but a distraction. While there are unfair laws, mostlythe biggest problems are the local laws and administration.
For example, 55 percent of homes do not meet local building codes and often there are not enough inspectors. The island ranks as one of the worst for building permits. Tax rates are high and there's obviously corruption, nepotism, and plain old incompetence. These are not a function of territorial status. Just my opinion.
Addressing those things is going to help the island regardless of status.
Mostly status is not just disenfranchisement but a distraction. While there are unfair laws, mostlythe biggest problems are the local laws and administration.
For example, 55 percent of homes do not meet local building codes and often there are not enough inspectors. The island ranks as one of the worst for building permits. Tax rates are high and there's obviously corruption, nepotism, and plain old incompetence. These are not a function of territorial status. Just my opinion.
Addressing those things is going to help the island regardless of status.
Lets not forget all the patronage appointments in the public corporations! Also, there's various labor laws that really make it tough to run a business on the island. For instance, employees get overtime pay on Saturday and Sundays even if it's their regularly scheduled workday. Then there's the mandatory Christmas bonus. All that stuff really eats into the bottom line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
