Republicans Shouldn't Fear Puerto Rico Statehood (Yes To Satehood Of Puerto Rico, But No To Statehood Of DC!!!)

Townhall.com ^ | October 18, 2020 | Jason Emert

[dfwgator]

Yep, PR would basically be like Quebec if it ever were a State, and it would also result in English AND Spanish becoming official languages all over the US.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

I agree! Puerto Rico should be allowed to become a state but not D.C.!

[foreverfree]

bump

[Stanwood_Dave]

"like we need a dead albatross around our neck."

By any chance, does those albatross come in black or white?

Do I really need the /S

[redpoll]

>>>Leave the U.N. for the dictatorships and let the U.S. be for the democracies.

In view of the possibility of many new states, we should freeze the number of stars at 50.<<<

A long time ago, in the early 1980s, I read a science fiction novel with the same premise, although in the book, it started with the Dominican Republic asking for statehood, which was granted. Soon enough, there was an American empire spread across the globe. The book couldn’t have been that good since I recall nothing but that premise as the foundation for its fictional world, and I’ve actually looked for the book a few times over the years. If someone out there knows about it, drop me the name.

[lightman]

The “deal” has always been a PR+DC package.

One R and one D.

[Wuli]

“The point of DC is that it isn’t part of a State - it’s separate and therefore no State can have any outsize influence on it. What we should do is eliminate ALL residential and retail, any private property within the district. Return the land that’s currently apartments or stores to Maryland, and leave DC with a tiny footprint of only government buildings and monuments/museums.”

Time has eliminated that possibility. There may have been some separation in its early years, but as settlement took place, and the private business serving residents and the government grew, and the government grew, there is today too much mingling of federal government buildings in among private & private-commercial buildings in too much blocks in D.C.

Your idea could only be carried out by moving far too many government offices and far too many residents and businesses.

And, I don;t think your idea is necessary.

I think it is possible in law to legislate a rewrite of the D.C. charter in a way that the district is a federal district within the borders of the state of Maryland but as far as control of the district it is completely under federal control, while its local residents are residents of Maryland with all the voting rights of Maryland citizens.

[Svartalfiar]

You are posing that question as though I, personally, have thought up the expression "on the fly."
Google "net takers" and "states" and you will see that this concept has been around for quite a while, and there is pretty much a consensus as to what it means

No, I pose that question because the majority of people, including Repubs/Conservatives, have no idea about it, they only think it's what the "Google consensus" is. The problem is that that consensus doesn't account for quite a lot of things, some of which were the questions I posed to you. Most people think CA is a massive welfare/taker State. It is big welfare, but that's more than offset by Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

[Svartalfiar]

Thanks!

[alexander_busek]

No, I pose that question because the majority of people, including Repubs/Conservatives, have no idea about it, they only think it's what the "Google consensus" is. The problem is that that consensus doesn't account for quite a lot of things, some of which were the questions I posed to you. Most people think CA is a massive welfare/taker State. It is big welfare, but that's more than offset by Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

No, by "there is a consensus as to what the term 'net taker' means" I did not mean "laymen generally can correctly identify 'net taker states.'"

Rather, I meant that, among economists and other experts qualified to comment on the actual data, there is a consensus as to what a 'net taker' is."

You are, of course, entitled to dispute their definition and/or hand-tailor your own definition.

Regards,