Oh sweet we turned a serious discussion with real political ramifications into who was the more racist candidate for president in 2016.

@ND

1) Didn't respond to my comment about the Muslim ban which is explicitly exclusionary to a religious minority and to Arabs.

2) I'm not a Democrat so i don't know why you think pointing out that party's bad historical record on race is going to bother me. Robert Byrd sucks.

3) Deporting/excluding a population based on their race is ethnic cleansing. At least Ann Coulter and that alt-right people are open enough to admit this is why they like Trump.

4) Your President is the fattest, oldest, and dumbest in history.

@TriPardo I didn't do that. You can thank the MAGA chuds on here.

1) The so-called "travel ban" isn't racist at all. It is a security measure. The areas being targeted are prone to high levels of terrorism. How anyone can construe that as something else is beyond me.

3) No sorry removing people in the United States who are here illegally with felonies is not ethnic cleansing and neither is constructing a protective wall to stop drugs and human trafficking.

4) Now you are just being childish. None of that is true. He is a very smart business man and a political genius.

@TrPrado: It isn't going to happen anytime soon. What's the point in talking about it further?

Anyway, I thought this was a good thread on history of US process of admitting new states.

https://twitter.com/MattGlassman312/status/874351204578586624

@SamWest

1. Yes i voted for Hillary, and yes Democrats screwed up this election. learn from our mistakes or we're doomed to repeat them, that's the phrase, right?

2. i've read the ENTIRE travel ban, it never mentions religion once. you're making a hybrid out of things he said on the campaign trail and actual legislation. that's unwise.

3. building a wall is ONLY an economic issue. as for strong borders, no other nation is so lenient as us. yes we need immigration reform, but our economy COULD NOT SURVIVE open borders. that would destroy our wage market

4. deporting people who are here illegally: once again, ONLY something we have qualms with. Mexico finds you there illegally? immediate deportation. plus, given that illegal immigrants costs more money yearly on the taxpayer than it takes to deport them: it's a financially wise move. you can be pro-immigration reform and anti-illegal immigration at the same time.

5. you're right about Trump being an idiot. he's not smart enough to be some goldfinger bad guy, liberals need to realize that and start attacking him on his lack of qualifications, rather than mystery-russia stuff that has zero concrete evidence so far.

6. Republicans do have a racist element to their party, but the Democrats are NOT innocent in this respect either. in any case, racism has not been a prevalent force in politics for many years. 90% of Trump's statement's that appear racist are very VERY stupidly worded. the other 10% are legitimately racist, but he realizes that and changes it later while the media freaks out

In Barack Obama's Dream's of my Father Obama is in Chicago trying to find a new church. he finds a woman there who tells Obama that she's saved up money and wants to move to the suburbs to get the best education for her son, but the Pastor of this church says that "with all those white kids around, he'll forget who he is as as a black man" (or something almost exactly along those lines, the wording betrays me)

Obama decides to meet this pastor, and when he does the Pastor says he stands by those words. i was expecting a smackdown, Obama to destroy this obviously radicalized pastor

but all he does is join the church, and that story ends.


How the hell ANYONE thought this man was going to be great for race relations, i do not know.

Seriously now, ND?

http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

Yeah....NO.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-duke-trump-219777

David Duke's endorsement of Trump was much more weighty among white supremacists.

BLM endorsed Hillary. so that's pretty bad

*rumbling in distance*

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

And Glenn Beck also said let's listen to BLM.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/15/glenn-beck-urges-conservatives-to-understand-black-lives-matter/

Wait are you denying that a KKK group endorsed Hillary? She never even disavowed the endorsement.

@ND

Good faith question, what made you want to vote for Trump? I am definitely left of center, and so it's very hard for me to understand it. I have conservative friends but they were all Never Trumpers and a lot ended up sitting the election out or voting for G. Johnson. What did you see in him?

Peurto Ricans are already US citizens, which is part of why independence isn't a popular option. It seems roughly split between statehood and commonwealth with under 5% favoring independence. That's been the pattern in a bunch of votes

And splitting Montana? Get real. There aren't enough people in Montana to make one stae, much less two. Split Texas of California or New York, not some failed micro state with fewer people in the whole state than live in my home town. Even D.C. Gas more people.

It was never a real endorsement by an irrelevant person. Why should she even acknowledge it?

David Duke on the other hand is a serious politician from Louisiana.

@Ogion

Did not realize independence was so popular. I can't fathom at all why people would vote to stay a territory. I think what no one has said here but is sort of an elephant in the room is that Puerto Rican statehood would mean US would need to become officially bilingual at the federal level. Spanish speakers are a big minority but don't make up the majority in any other state I don't think. Puerto Rico would be our first English minority state, something like our version of Quebec.

This wouldn't bother me but I think others would object to it. I can't think of any negative consequences of admitting a Spanish-speaking state, other than more shameless attempts to pander to the Latino community by of American politicians. I.E. Mitt Romney in a spray tan and Hillary "I'm your Abuela" Clinton.

*independence was so unpopular.

@Sam West: So many things. It's hard to start, but let's try a few simple points.
+Economic Policies
+Against bad trade policies (Trans-Pacific Partnership)
+Against bad international policies that hurt the United States (Paris Climate Accord)
+For Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline
+For Energy sector and growth in the United States (Coal, drilling, off-shore oil rigs, etc)
+For U.S. manufacturing and some 'built in the USA' protectionist trade policies
+For Security measures (Extreme Vetting, Border Wall, etc)
+For strong military and a non-interventionist policy that only becomes interventionist when a red line is crossed
+For being a President to all Americans not just specific groups and interest blocs like Obama-Democrats
+For America First policies
+For reducing and slashing the size of the Federal Government

Just a few things for you and did @Ogion just call for gassing people. Wow.
Did @Jeff just ignore and say that Hillary didn't have to disavow an endorsement from a KKK leader? Did @Jeff just say that David Duke was a serious politician? LOL what did he get like 1% of the vote in Louisiana in that last election, try harder plz.

David Duke was elected to the Louisiana state legislature as a REPUBLICAN in 1989. That's a helluva lot more serious than any bozo KKK troll from California who makes jokes about Trump's hair as why they're donating to Hillary.

He was a local has been and trump disavowed it. Hillary never disavowed the KKK group that endorsed her.

one of the greatest moments EVER from MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NVVwZVd6ZM

@A lot of you, you guys have gotten off topic of the thread. You want to bleat about other things, start a new thread. IIRC, this is about the recent referendum on Puerto Rican Statehood.

@Ogion, what I posted WAS FAKE NEWS. But really, it would not surprise me if the Republicans thought it would help retain control of Congress and they needed to have Puerto Rico join the union for some reason, then they would split Montana or some other similar state.

@TrPrado, I do know that the election was boycotted. Further, that turnout was not high. However, that is where the concept of tacit consent is used. Those that had an opportunity to vote but did not tacitly consent to the will of the majority of those that voted. We do that here every year with our similarly low voter turnouts on non-presidential election years.

The independence movement in Puerto Rico has been suppressed for many decades. Displaying the Puerto Rican flag or even sing a patriotic song was illegal. I suspect that full independence may be the most desired, but for various pragmatic reasons see statehood as a more likely result and better than the status quo.

Look at ND still harping on about how destroying the Earth's climate in order to benefit the US economy in the short term is some kind of proud achievement.

Disgusting.

Also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/?utm_term=.5812bf83e2a2

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon

Trump is the president the KKK and the Nazi's adore. And it's not surprising.

@"1) The so-called "travel ban" isn't racist at all. It is a security measure. The areas being targeted are prone to high levels of terrorism. How anyone can construe that as something else is beyond me."

Lets be clear, the actual people affected by the 'travel ban' are immigrants - and the US is a country of immigrants - no-one from the regions covered by the ban has ever committed an act of terrorism in the US.

Regions where muslim extremists have come from and attacked the US were not included in the ban, notable Saudi Arabia - because oil.

The reason people in Saudi Arabia hate the US is closely related to why they hate the House of Saud. Oppression by the state, the US supports the House of Saud by selling them weapons, and protecting them from UN security council sanctions (which would stop them selling oil). Trump is very happy with his deal with the Saudis and continuation of this oil for guns deal.

Iranians are less likely to hate the US because their government tells them to. Any Iranian who decides their government is repressive, and thry should flee to a free country - AND happens to choose the US as their destination - is highly unlikely to commit a crime. Never mind terrorism.

Anyone Iranian who wants to hurt the US can simply join the Iranian army, or an Iranian militia and go out directly to fightin Iraq/Syria.

Why would they become terrorists and try to travel to America when the Americans are sending troops into the middle east? The average Saudi Arabian does not have this option, the only way to hurt the House of Saud is to target their relationship with the US.

I can't generalise to all the other countries in the region, but these are two of the most powerful ones. You should talk to some Syrians, and Iranians, and Saudis, and get a feel for what they think of their government.

As for Puerto Rico, just end the illegal occupation of Hawaii and let the Puerto Ricans have their statehood, if that is what they want... Oppressive taxation without representation is currently how their live, with decisions made by congress where they have no vote. Full statehood makes sense, from a democratic stand-point. Others have discussed the economic already, and i bow their superior knowledge&analysis.

Though i suspect the relative population difference, and the fact that puerto rican's are already US citizens, means absorbing them would have like effect economically.

Independence would be the much larger change to the status quo.

Well, the commonwealth status has actually a number of tax advantages that apparently would be lost with statehood so the concern is partly economic. I suspect there is a desire to stay more loosely associated than being a state. There was another quasi independent association floated some years back that looked like it got some traction. Of course Puerto Rican politics are pretty dysfunctional around this issue so it is hard to know for sure. However, Perot Rica is a lot richer than its independent neighbors and I strongly suspect they look at DR and Cuba and think twoce. Especially when compared to places like Guadeloupe (a full French department)

Maybe people think the travel ban is a racist targeting of Muslims because that's what trump said it was and his voters clearly supported. The only reason why there is any discussion of who is the most racist is because Trump's racist supporters feel a need to cover up the fact that racism is the main plank in their platform. So they come up with a bunch of fake news junk, just as they do on climate change, evolution and this laughable notion that Hillary Clinton is dishonest. (Fact checks show she was by far the most honest of the candidates, and Trump leading the pack of generally lying republicans. But hey, who needs reality when you have propaganda. Americans are so easily duped that it works. That's what happens when you're lazy