Posts made by pppucci

@raphjd:

As someone already said, they only want to become a state so the US tax payers will bail them out.

There has been a strong statehood movement in Puerto Rico for more than 50 years.  The main argument is based more on security than economics.  Most Puerto Ricans would suffer financially under statehood since they would be liable to pay federal taxes.  Under the no taxation without representation concept, they are exempt from federal taxes now.
It could be argued that statehood with give them protection under Title 9 of the bankruptcy clause, but Congress could do that alone by law.  There is certainly no guarantee that statehood would prompt a bailout.  Remember President Ford and NYC?

@aadam101:

@pppucci:

Don't hold your breath, anyone.  I lived in Puerto Rico for 8 years and understand the politics there.  The 23% turnout represents a boycott by those against statehood.  Turnout for gubernatorial elections is usually over 90%.  The true sentiment about statehood in Puerto Rico is about 50:50.  Even worse, Congress has ignored Puerto Ricans' wishes in the past and has no appetite for granting it statehood.

Why boycott?  Isn't voting against it a better idea?

Also, why do they hold elections on Sunday? Wouldn't a weekday election be better since elections are usually held in schools and people bring their kids to schools?  What am I missing?

The boycotters were essentially recognizing the futility of the referendum, as Congress has failed to act on previous referenda favoring statehood. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19860/why-would-people-protest-the-puerto-rico-statehood-referendum-by-boycotting
Having it on a Sunday probably was to increase turnout.  In Puerto Rico, the voting process is very different then here.  The voters check into a room and the doors are closed and then everyone votes by paper ballot.  The entire process can take 4 hours or more.  If it were held on a weekday, people would have to miss work.  Also as I mentioned, about 50% support statehood, so they turned out less than half of their base.

@raphjd:

Yet another liberal has asked the site own to get rid of me because of my "toxic republican propaganda".

I see that only liberals are allowed to have an opinion and everyone else must be banned.     I guess if this was a building, they'd have set it on fire to prevent me from expressing my views.

I have no objection to you expressing your opinions.  I do expect, however, that in your role as moderator, you be fair to all parties and act in the best interests of free and open discussion without flaming posts.  So far, I think you have done that job well.

@mhorndisk:

@pppucci:

"Something doesn't have to be classified to be a leak.  "
Wow! Frederick and Mhorndisk actually disagree on something.

We don't disagree. You're confusing two separate issues. One:) Comey leaking a private conversation with the President done in a confidential setting - which Trump called illegal, and Two:) Chaffetz reporting that Hillary was being investigated. One is confidential, the other isn't. Confidential doesn't have to be like "Top Secret." It can be like a conversation you have with a law enforcement official. Quit trying to be clever. That's what snakes do.

I'm not being clever, just considering the facts. A "confidential" conversation with the president is in no way protected.  Trump specifically waived any claim of executive privilege, and in fact, in Washington DC, conversations may be recorded as long as one party consents.  So if that is true, Comeys recollections of the conversation are certainly legal. and providing them to the press is protected by the first amendment.  And wishful thinking to dismiss the special prosecutor…

Don't hold your breath, anyone.  I lived in Puerto Rico for 8 years and understand the politics there.  The 23% turnout represents a boycott by those against statehood.  Turnout for gubernatorial elections is usually over 90%.  The true sentiment about statehood in Puerto Rico is about 50:50.  Even worse, Congress has ignored Puerto Ricans' wishes in the past and has no appetite for granting it statehood.

"Something doesn't have to be classified to be a leak.  "
Wow! Frederick and Mhorndisk actually disagree on something.

@Frederick:

I have mentioned that there are 4 liberal, 4 conservative, and one swing Supreme Court Justices.
Three of the liberals are quite elderly and could retire or die at any time.
However, I just found out that the swing vote Kennedy who is 80 years old might retire within a month!

That would probably result in 5 conservative vs 4 liberal justices. 
Thanks to moonbat Harry Reid - who didn't anticipate that the Republican's would take over all 3 branches of government, It only takes a simple majority of 51% to confirm justices now.. called the "nuclear option" instead of 60% as was previously the case.

And surely some conservatives are trying to slip arsenic into Ruth Bader Ginsberg's cereal.

@mhorndisk:

Back to the subject: Chaffetz's, "so-called," leak, was not a leak, because it was not classified information. You just believed CNN when they told you it was a "leak." They lied to you, sorry. And you fell for it, because you guys always just believe the things you WANT to hear. That's what keeps you coming back to CNN, and they can sell you Coca-Cola and McDonald's advertisements during the break. They know what you want to hear. They are actors. They are selling you on what you want to hear, creating a narrative, weaving a web of lies, because you can't handle the Truth.

It was Trump that called Comey a leaker, and that memo was not classified.  And Trump could have always announced he was not under investigation, even if that was classified.  Stop deflecting.

New Jersey couples may get married as young as 16 with parental consent, while minors younger than 16 also need the approval of court. If the parties do not have parental consent, both parties must be at least 18 years of age.

@mhorndisk:

The Republicans weren't leaking anything because it's against the law. It was all the liberals doing the leaks because they have no ethics and no regard for laws.

When Comey reopened the Hilary email case in October 2016, it was Republican Chaffetz who leaked that letter to the press.

If you are underage, forget it.  You could put the escort in serious legal jeopardy.  Whether it is legal if you are of age depends on the state.  Most laws, however are rarely enforced.

"The moonbats bitched and moaned like two year olds until they got exactly what they wanted.. investigations and special counsels, etc.
That backfired when nothing tangible came out of their witch hunt."

Two songs in reply, Lenny Kravitz "It Ain't Over Until It's Over," and Karen Carpenter, "We've Only Just Begun…"

@mhorndisk:

These dumb ass liberals in the Senate AND Congress KNEW for WEEKS that Trump wasn't being investigated because there was NO evidence, and yet they allowed this WHOLE FUCKING THING TO GO ON in the MEDIA!!! FUCK THEM. Fuck MAD MAXINE. Fuck Chucky Schumer! Fuck Nancy Pelosi. Fuck all of them! They are the most corrupt pieces of garbage EVER!!! They knew all along! COMEY threw them all under the bus. You liberals should be SO ASHAMED of yourselves for your total stupidity and ignorance. It is unfitting of a human being to be so dumb.

So were the Republicans ( there are four of them in the Gang of Eight, including Congressman Nunes, Mitch McConnell, Speaker Ryan And Senator Warner) too principled to leak it themselves?  Also, why did Trump not come out and say that himself, but waited to fire Comey before he stated that?  You cannot blame it all on the liberals.

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

I think Frederick oversimplifies the dynamics of a supreme court case. While each justice has a dominant ideology, they rightly should consider each case on its merits and it would be premature to predict how any would vote in any particular case.  A big hint ill come as to how they rule on the motion to put the ban into effect until they rule on the merits.  And remember, they may decide not to hear the case at all, which would leave the lower court orders in place, or may wait until the lower courts rule on the merits.

BTW, all you Trump supporters out there, answer me this:  the original Executive order placed a temporary 120 day hold on immigration from 7 countries while stronger vetting measures could be developed.  More than 120 days have passed since then.  Where are the stronger vetting measures?  He was just trying to fulfill a campaign promise.

Ideally, all the justices should base each case on it's own merit.. but unfortunately, that is not the way it works.  Both parties are guilty of "going with the pack" but the democraps are far more guilty of it.  Democraps RARELY split from the pack and vote their own conscience.  That goes for congress as well.

The original executive order indefinitely barred Syrian refugees from entering the United States, suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days and blocked citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, refugees or otherwise, from entering the United States for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  However, that order was blocked.   He revised the order, and the revised order also got blocked.  Until the blocks are cleared, nothing can be done. I don't think you will be seeing a whole lot more blocks, because the moonbats are retreating back into their caves.

So immigration policy cannot be reviewed until the travel ban is in place?  That makes no sense at all.

I think Frederick oversimplifies the dynamics of a supreme court case. While each justice has a dominant ideology, they rightly should consider each case on its merits and it would be premature to predict how any would vote in any particular case.  A big hint ill come as to how they rule on the motion to put the ban into effect until they rule on the merits.  And remember, they may decide not to hear the case at all, which would leave the lower court orders in place, or may wait until the lower courts rule on the merits.

BTW, all you Trump supporters out there, answer me this:  the original Executive order placed a temporary 120 day hold on immigration from 7 countries while stronger vetting measures could be developed.  More than 120 days have passed since then.  Where are the stronger vetting measures?  He was just trying to fulfill a campaign promise.

@mhorndisk:

Accept this case doesn't have anything to do with religious minorities. That's just what you guys wanna make it about because you see things from a skewed and fake perspective.

In the words of our President, It is a Muslim ban.

@raphjd:

Your penchant for hanging opponents just proves you are a fascist.

Funny coming from a liberal.

Miriam Webster :  Definition of fascism

often capitalized :  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

How is that funny coming from a liberal?

That may be so, but Trump should not count on the vote of his own nominee to the Court:  http://time.com/4705858/neil-gorsuch-religious-minorities/

Frederick replies:  If you were being honest, which you are not, you would admit that all this horse shit about Flynn and Comey and travel bans are just a flurry of tempests in a teapot attacks meant to prevent Trump from getting anything done.  That is no secret.  People like Hillary, Pedosta, Schumer, Pelosi all pledged to do whatever it took to resist Donald Trump and never stop resisting aka obstructing him.  They have declared a political civil war with Trump.  Perhaps all those moonbats should be hung for Treason.  In other countries, they would be.

First of all, politics is politics, not treason.  The Republicans blocked everything they could of Obama's agenda including refusing to give his supreme court nominee a hearing in the senate. Your penchant for hanging opponents just proves you are a fascist.

Frederick writes:
Although I did use the word "guilty" you incorrectly assumed that was related to a trial.  I must remember to chose words that can't possibly be twisted by biased moonbats.  Also.. you added the word "successful" to obstruction.  I didn't say that.  All I did was imply that no ACTION was taken - successful or unsuccessful.

Firing Comey is not the obstruction, it was Trump asking Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn.  There can be a legitimate debate as whether that truly represented obstruction, but the fact that Comey continued his investigation does not absolve the president of possible obstruction.  I also will not dignify your comments on epithets with a reply.