Originally Posted by James Brown
Seems you are off on some sort of tangent. I said, "And can qualify through the Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 processes that were applied most recently to HI and AK..." Meaning of course that I see no Constitutional impediment to PR statehood, such as there might be with DC. Now you are bringing economic and some fairly racist social arguments against PR statehood. Nice pivot, but remember where we started, you were arguing that the mere thought of statehood is some sort of radical leftist plot. Your exact quote was, "When you virtually Ignore the threats coming from the left, especially the Minority LEADER of the Senate, Chuck Schumer, threatening that they will ADD 2 States to the Union, VERY radical, it exposes your naivety for what the Radical Leftist Democrat machine is capable of doing."
My points are that DC statehood is probably unconstitutional, although I am not sure that is settled. Adding PR as a state is neither radical nor leftist, assuming we follow the Constitutional prescription. I never said whether I personally favor PR statehood or not. What is so hard for you to understand?
Racist???????? How so? If one looks at the facts and makes a logical conclusion that makes you racist? Really?
No, that is simply a leftist cop out....For someone who claims to be a conservative you sure do dip into those waters at times.....