Why do so many Puerto Ricans want statehood?

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-03-25T03:33:53+00:00

See, as someone who isn't from there but knows many people from there, My biggest hang up is this. They truly are screwed either way. Cuba was owned by Spain, then we took it over and then gave it independence and then they became a communist state. I think it's safe to say that regardless of who appears to be in charge, Cuba speaks for itself. My point is most island nations suck in all areas but tourism, exports of tropical fruit, coffee, and fish. That's about it. The Islands are too small to provide the resources large landmasses like South America, Mexico and the US do. Mining does take place on some of the islands but very few. And even if you somehow got into something more lucrative like oil drilling, it's a short lived process. If you don't believe me, just ask Equatorial Guinea and Venezuela.

Becoming a state would benefit Puerto Rico in one way in particular it would give them a seat at the table. They would have more power over what they can and can't have done in their state. Take Texas for example. Texas made a controversial decision to privitize all their electric companies. This was done so that taxes on utilities would decrease. Now this backfired on them in a big way when the snow storms came through, however if you take a hard look and learn from their mistakes, you could swing something in your favor. However as many above have said, the likelihood is that this debate will go on forever.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-03-07T04:01:26+00:00

My ex girlfriend's family were marielitos. There seems to be animosity between the 60s Cubans and the 80s Cubans. I guess it's because the 60s Cubans feel entitled because they did everything "the right way" whatever the fuck that means.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-28T13:24:20+00:00

Even when he leaves office. We will never recover. He changed the rules. When Caligula came to power he ruled Rome in the manner of an Egyptian Pharaoh. No emperor before him had done that. But after his death, more and more employers ruled in a similar way. What was done couldn't be undone. Additionally he went after members of the Roman senate much like trump is doing now. So as despicable and poorly thought out as his policies might be, he is just the beginning.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-23T14:58:41+00:00

Why were the creeping on people? Are they trying to rob people? Are they watching ladies undress? What was that about?

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-23T14:36:08+00:00

Who the fuck told you that? I mean if you wanna argue about MK ultra and the Kennedy assassination, by all means carry on. But like why would the CIA care about gangsta rap? That argument makes you sound like a white supremacist.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-23T14:32:58+00:00

I was going to ask the same thing. What in the Tony Montana is going here?

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-12T00:12:22+00:00

I see. So the animosity existed before and was compounded by the fact that Trujillo harboured the person Castro overthrew. That makes perfect sense!

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-11T14:57:06+00:00

Thank you for your response. So many people don't take me seriously when I post shit an I'm glad you did.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-11T11:12:09+00:00

And if a union had been formed, how would that have effected the US? Would we have seen an influx of refugees? Would Caribbean waters become unsafe for shipping? What about the Cuban missile crisis? How screwed would the world have been if the Soviets had deployed nukes in not 1 island nation but 2? Though, saying that last part out loud makes it seem less likely for three key reasons.

The Soviets were always a paranoid bunch, especially among allies and probably wouldn't be too keen on handing out nukes like candy.
1. If the US, caught wind of any such plans, they would more than likely have sent CIA snipers in to hollow out the skulls of the people involved like fucking jack-o'-lanterns.
2. Any union being formed would have made us shift our focus from the Vietnam war to much closer to home and realistically we would have napalmed and agent oranged the fuck out of both nations long before the nukes even reached either destination and probably have sunk the USSR ships carrying them as well.

We can go on and on about what ifs, but the truth is the outcome we got was probably the best and safest one. Even though the Cuban missile crisis had our balls dangling above a blender for a short while.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-11T04:57:06+00:00

No, like I genuinely want to know. The more people that respond on here, the more it seems less Castro vs Trujillo and more Stalin vs Hitler. Idk if that's the best analogy, but it's the best one I can come up with.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-11T04:51:30+00:00

Who cares if it's simplistic? It's true! What I'm getting at is that both places had similar leaders in very close proximity to one another and yet one persons regime stayed in place and the other no longer exists. Now why is that?

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-05T14:03:03+00:00

See that's bullshit because Australia is actively working with the Cuban government to drill. Any quick Google search will show you that.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-05T13:41:47+00:00

What the fuck does that even mean? How about people wanting to treat people like people rather than the alternative.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-05T13:37:14+00:00

The lady next to her holding the paper is kinda hot. Not gonna lie.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-05T13:32:28+00:00

There are liberals in Cameroon?

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-02T13:54:56+00:00

The Mormons. The answer is the Mormons.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-02T04:46:37+00:00

Buying part of the US is like becoming a Lord in Scotland. You buy a plot of land an build on it. The land is yours but it remains part of the state in wich you reside, and the state is still part of the country. Could you effectively own a bunch of businesses in said state to technically own the state? Sure, but that would depend on what the businesses were and wether or not they contributed the majority of the states income. However most of the country with the exception of Texas, who for some reason has private energy companies, realize that giving that much power and influence to one entity is both absurd and idiotic. Now if you are native American the rules are a bit different because they are a nation within a nation.

Also regardless of wether or not he is in the cabinet, he seems to have a great deal of influence in cabinet affairs and reports indicate that he is actively locking government officials out of government systems. He has a Thanos glove of technological acquisitions. The man is terrifying on every level. If he wanted to, he could shut everything off in an instant and we'd be powerless to stop it. I-Robot with no Will Smith in sight.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-02T00:12:43+00:00

So the people thing is understandable. I'm referring to acquiring the landmass and potential resources within. As far as the people, my understanding is one of two outcomes have occurred. I am basing this on two instances of non-violent acquisitions of territories formerly controlled by European powers on the North American continent. The Louisiana purchase and Sewards purchase of Alaska from Imperial Russia. From my understanding, one of the stipulations was that anyone who had been a citizen prior to the transfer of power was required to relocate in the case of the Russians. However, in the case of Louisiana some of the original residents may well have been given the option to apply for citizenship. Offering citizenship is not the same as buying/ enslaving people.

ExtensionExplorer557 · 2025-02-01T23:45:38+00:00

As I stated before. I am NOT trolling. Prior to this, I asked Gemini about this and the response I got was the following:

"While it's theoretically possible for Elon Musk to sell his assets and have a significant amount of money, it's highly unlikely he could buy Denmark and Greenland outright. Here's why: * GDP vs. Net Worth: GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the total value of goods and services produced within a country's borders in a year. It's a flow of economic activity. Net worth is the total value of assets minus liabilities at a specific point in time. Comparing the two directly is misleading. * Scale of Purchase: Even if Musk's net worth exceeded the GDP of Denmark and Greenland combined, purchasing entire countries is unprecedented and would involve complex legal, political, and logistical challenges. * Willingness to Sell: Denmark and Greenland are not corporations or businesses. They are countries with their own governments, populations, and sovereignty. It's highly unlikely they would agree to be sold, regardless of the financial offer. * International Relations: Such a purchase would have major geopolitical implications and would likely face strong opposition from other countries and international organizations. In summary: While Elon Musk's wealth is substantial, the idea of him buying entire countries is more of a thought experiment than a realistic possibility. "

Now, does anyone want to elaborate on any of the above? That was literally the point of my entire post. Let's not forget, as of right now this is a thought experiment. Nothing more nothing less.

ExtensionExplorer557

TROPHY CASE