Just ignore them Patsy.
I would just observe that should one aspire to serious political discourse on an issue regarding Puerto Rico; it would behoove them to invest the minimal effort needed to determine the Presidential voting status for its residents.
Were one actually aspiring to serious discourse.
Was the GI bill “buying votes” from vets? Is road building “buying votes” from drivers? Are public schools “buying votes” from parents? Is public housing “buying votes” from people with a low income? Is medicare and social security “buying votes” from retirees? Was the Cold War “buying votes” from the defense industry? Is civil rights legislation “buying votes” from minorities who have suffered at the hands of segregation? Was allowing women the vote “buying votes” from women?
Compared to the current holder of the office, WHO LITERALLY SUPPORTED INTEFERENCE BY A FOREIGN POWER IN OUR ELECTIONS… but those greedy bitches who just don’t know their place are the real problem, AMIRITE! /S
Then don’t. Your talking point after this phrase is actually irrelevant anyway.
Back in the day America had a whole political revolution over being taxed without representation in the taxing government.
You know, how Puerto Ricans are US citizens, get federally taxed, but can’t vote?
Sounds like someone might want to learn a little history.
Pardon me, but I couldn’t help but overhear. I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement.
More than the vulgar pop culture references that have you fanning yourself, it also deserves better than you dodging a discussion of why debt relief and forgiveness might make sense and outweigh the supposed moral hazard in these cases by effectively classifying every policy proposal a candidate makes (or at least the ones you don’t like) as “vote buying”. That’s bad form, sir. Bad. Form.
I still don’t understand how Puerto Rico was allowed to give free electricity to commercial enterprises, with seemingly no restrictions or limits. running the power authority and PR into debt. How could that have been seen as sustainable?
I suspect this subsidy to stadiums and other businesses is just different in kind than degree.
People think the world runs on pure free market capitalism, but that all goes out the window when it comes to sports stadiums and business subsidies.
I think this is ultimately the local government giving out electricity and waterpark tickets, compared to what most cities willingly give organizations like the NFL for free. They’re “allowed” to do it, but “business welfare” happens everywhere, and for a lot more than in PR. There’s great reasons to be against certain subsidies in principle, but it’s not totally unusual, even wherever you live.
No, no, no. When you speak to the concerns of minorities or mention any family connections to them - you’re pandering.
But when you mention your German or Scottish familial connections, speak to the concerns of specific religious groups, describe Nazis as fine people or discuss huge infrastructure projects in swing states that are predominantly white - you’re just being Presidential.
It’s a common mistake.
I’m assuming that, too, is a pop culture image, Ms Melizmatic. I am trying to have a reasonable conversation here, and find it rude that you would continue to post such images.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
