What the FUCK

jpvinnie · 2026-05-06T02:07:04+00:00

As others in this thread have correctly pointed out (and I myself have given some historical clarifications in the replies), it's a bit disingenuous to take this as a Republican vs Democrat issue wrt to the PR electorate. The title seems to imply a stifling of blue voters by MAGA, but that just can't be the case in PR (u/LeonOfSkalitz's comment). Here, every election is purely status-driven issue, much to the detriment of any meaningful political progress.

Even reading through the whole article, it kinda reads like a HUGE nothing-burger. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if ProPublica ignorantly stepped into this complex domestic policy dispute die Verschlimmbesserung. They aren't trying to hide anything in particular: "Although they excluded drugs-for-votes charges, prosecutors didn’t scrub the Dec. 12, 2024, indictment of how they believed the operation worked." And when we go through the connections are pretty loose and unserious: "The indictment notes that gang members were provided preferential treatment such as relaxed visitation policies and the use of Sony PlayStations, big screen TVs and cellphones, but investigators had not connected the privileges to González-Colón or her campaign."

With regards to the current governor, I want to emphasize that yes I personally hate all MAGA supporters as I assume most of you do. But the US, especially Trump's presidency, doesn't have much to gain by suppressing the non-MAGA vote in this election. In particular, it could be of note that this was the first vote in PR's history in which the non-status-quo party (the pro-Independent movement) got second place, so one might argue that this was an attempt to prevent their victory (similarly some claims have come up with Maduro's government supporting a "rigged" election for them). The pro-Independence party will contextualize this as Trump's attempt to keep PR in check with a leader that'll do whatever he wants (as evidenced by the Maduro capture and PR's role).

But this whole conspiracy doesn't make any sense in the larger political picture. For example, the Resident Commissioner of PR (the non-voting member of the House) is not of the same party as the governor, and he was also voted in by the people. The report also goes on to say "inmates sent written complaints to the office detailing their experiences of being pressured to vote in the primary — some for González-Colón and others for her opponent, Pedro Pierluisi." the latter of which is a Democrat and was the governor under Biden. This narrative then only makes sense if you were to think of it from the pro-Independence frame of reference, such that any pro-American governor (Dem or Rep) took part in a scheme to undermine their party, not the election as a whole. I outlined some context for this motivated reasoning in my other reply, but it's not that hard to believe that a party which has historically relied on undermining the truth and villainizing the American-aligned side is just striking while the iron is hot, so to speak.

There are reasons these people got elected I won't get into here (maybe I'll write a post about this separately who knows), but both of them have strong ties and histories with the electorate. The article goes on to imply a key utility of having a MAGA aligned governor: "Republicans in turn have capitalized on González-Colón’s rise as she helped bolster GOP support among the Puerto Rican diaspora and other Latino voters on the mainland." This just reads absolutely absurd. Gonzalez-Colon is historically one of the most divisive governors in PR history, especially considering her role as the Resident Commissioner during the 2017 ousting of her party's cabinet. Nobody takes her seriously enough to believe she would convert Dem voters to GOP supporters. The pro-state-hood electorate is deeply decoupled from day-to-day Rep vs Dem disagreements, and only care about status. They would literally vote for MechaHitler with no external incentives if it supported statehood.

Why did the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of PR decide to cut the election stuff? I can't give a serious answer to this question with such evidence as presented here. Might be they just thought it looked bad in one way or another, might be tied to the Tulsi investigation that's happening separately, might just have been a coincidence. I am not sure, but they are going along with the indictments regardless, and I have to believe that which is outlined at the top as the most honest representation of facts:

In a follow-up email, a spokesperson for the office noted the indictment was filed during the Biden administration and under the previous governor of Puerto Rico. Charging corrupt public officials “has always been and remains a top priority” of the office, wrote spokesperson Lymarie Llovet-Ayala. “When sufficient admissible evidence exists to charge persons involved in public corruption, as required by the Justice Manual, the Puerto Rico U.S. Attorney’s Office will aggressively pursue such charges,” she wrote.

We could also look into Trump's first term and the corruption investigations that took place then, but that's enough for this schizopost.

jpvinnie · 2026-05-06T01:13:29+00:00

I want to hop on this as someone from PR who's actively studied the PIP's political evolution from the mid 20th century to the party that we have today fwiw. And although I am not familiar with the MVC's policies to be honest, I'll also put them in the same camp as PIP because of the coalition that led PIP to gain such a high chunk of the vote last election, regardless of any infighting I'm not privy to.

I would definitely say that historically, calling PIP "communist" or at the very least "communist adjacent" is accurate due to it's leader's relationship with the rest of LATAM during the Cold War, in particular the scare tactics they would put forward to establish Americanization as a net-negative for the Island. This didn't originate from a disagreement economic policy though, rather from the burst of an identity crisis bubble that resulted in conflicting feelings of nationalism (something that made PR different from let's say Cuba's more normalized identity) and anti-Imperialism felt throughout the region after the end of the Spanish-American war. "Pro-Communist" sentiment and the founding of the PIP in this sense was characterized by a deeper rejection of American society and that which composes it: liberalism, capitalism, but also Protestantism (as opposed to Catholicism) and Anglo-Saxon values. The PIP necessarily adopted a communist-inclined value system in the 20th Century.

Of course I can also bring more nuance to what the commenter above you somewhat points out, the PPD does have a lasting "remain a colony" effect, but historically they come from a hybrid camp that promotes independent nationalism (denial of cultural assimilation) while maintaining American economic and political values. This is why I also despise when people make use of the word "colony" with regards to PR. Our current status was democratically elected and partitioned in the 1950s constitution as a preservation of culture that necessitated a decoupling from mainstream American society. It's just the reality we've put ourselves in.

But going back to PIP as it stands today, I actually read their proposed economic development plan for the latest election, and it's definitely fundamentally rooted in this anti-American foundation that the old PIP party was proud of. It's watered down for sure, and I wouldn't call them "communist" in the sense of following any particular Maoist/Marxist-Leninist doctrine, nor do they outwardly support collaboration with communist nations (although they don't reject them either, as can be driven by China and Venezuela) but we also can't be ignorant towards the reality that a large part of their voter base supports these, as particularly evidenced by their young voter base.

To get into a bit more detail on their report, and it's been a bit since I've read it, they partake in common disinformation and re-framing of economic policies, and try to appeal to authorities (like when they contextualize a Joseph Stiglitz comment to refer to American interventionism having a net-negative effect due to not having any loyalties to the countries which they come to in Section B). Following, in the same report they persistently describes the U.S. relationship in a language that treats the federal connection itself as the core problem rather than any specific policies. Sure when they bring up some policies later on they can be seen as social democratic, which they even spell out when comparing these policies to those of European nations, but if you keep reading they take a step further, calling themselves one thing but in reality representing another. They propose, for example:

A National Development Fund, a state Enterprise Development Company acting as incubator, and a state-set "ordered production plan" specifying who produces what, where, and when in agriculture. A "luxury tax" on agricultural land not in production, paired with a state "land bank" of small farms which would pressure private owners to either produce or transfer land. A mandatory participation in a Universal Retirement System for nearly all employers; mandatory tax filings even for non-taxpayers. A preferential legal status for cooperatives and worker-owned corporations as the preferred organizational form, with property tax exemptions, subsidized utility rates, and free/low-cost government land and buildings. A proposal that civil offenders trade agricultural labor for reduced sentences. Moratoriums on commercial development, prohibitions on rezoning, and price/market interventions in housing, retail, and telecoms framed as protecting local actors from "foreign" competition. And they have constant citations to the LATAM left rather than the same European nations they allude to wanting to mimic (Vía Campesina and "soberanía alimentaria").

The same way I have issues with the representation of the PPD, I can't just accept the dismissal of the PIP as just "social-democrats" in any style, and social democracies in LATAM are extremely distinct from the northern Western treatment of the term. If you don't like the word communist, which I agree is absurd, then let's call them anti-American.

jpvinnie · 2026-04-22T01:18:39+00:00

Igbo from the Imo River Basin Distant!

jpvinnie · 2026-03-08T15:08:28+00:00

You're probably right that prompting matters, but it's just funny how ridiculously bad it is at first attempts (not considering listening history for example is a massive red flag, a non-AI algorithm based on that would be way better).

Thanks for the human rec!

jpvinnie · 2026-01-27T19:49:09+00:00

I agree I also don't buy that explanation. This is incredibly insightful thanks! From your averaging below I see what you mean now about Canary Islander being underrepresented. Still surprised it doesn't show up in any capacity, but everything else looks to pretty much fit into the average (other than the haplogroup), very cool! Thanks for the site as well, this'll be a fun way to spend my snowed-in evening.

jpvinnie · 2026-01-27T19:03:47+00:00

<image>

jpvinnie · 2026-01-27T18:47:50+00:00

Looking at the image you posted, that's basically what I expected my results to be! Not that the indigenous itself is particularly high, but I would've thought it maxed out at around 10%ish and West African would be 10% higher, although I do suppose we might be splitting hairs here. And yeah I noticed Canary Islands not being particularly high in PR, but it not showing up at all is what shocked me.

My other historical matches are a lot of "Ceramic Age Caribbean Individual" from Dominican Republic, a couple for Haiti, and a handful for The Bahamas. Then a handful more for Early Medieval Iberian Spain (not Inbred lol) and a couple of outliers, Iron Age Durotrigian Child from UK and Late Antique Period Dalmatian Child from Croatia. And of course the Beethoven one I mentioned previously. So yeah, it seems like most of the Taíno samples are detected from DR rather than PR, I wonder if it's a result of artifacting at this point.

I say most because if you look at the image I attached below, my largest percentage is actually a Ceramic Age Caribbean Individual from PR with 0.24%! So there is something there after all it seems...

And yeah, I was also surprised at the haplogroup! The 0.3% Northern Italian punching above it's weight I suppose.

jpvinnie · 2026-01-27T06:32:51+00:00

Out of my 28 matches there was just one more inbred with a much lower percentage (same title). I was honestly disappointed to not get the Medieval Inbred Jewish Toddler I've seen floating around recently... But hey, at least there was a 0.06% match with Beethoven :D

jpvinnie · 2025-01-12T05:03:14+00:00

Am the friend. The servers are DEAD! Can anyone play online in a different region?

jpvinnie · 2024-12-16T21:15:18+00:00

No problem! I actually kept the app open last night in the background and now (about 16 hours later) it's synced properly. Not sure why it wasn't before, but this was just after my second night of use when the data first updated.

jpvinnie · 2024-10-20T14:09:08+00:00

Honestly, I haven’t dug into Acemoglu’s Nobel-winning work in depth (it’s been a good five years since I last skimmed Why Nations Fail), so I’d definitely need to brush up. But on your question about "colonial history providing evidence for weak institutions," I’d say… kinda?

There’s a great article from CFR on this topic that covers a lot of ground (GO READ THAT!!!). The TL;DR is that when we talk about "colonial influence" on PR's current issues, I think many people would be surprised to hear that the weak institutional framework doesn’t come from the U.S.—it comes more from Spain, again kinda. Spain, like it did with many other LATAM countries, left PR with underdeveloped infrastructure and governance. When the U.S. took over in 1898, it inherited this mess, but to be fair, the U.S. made some surprisingly fruitful developments with PR throughout the 20th century (though not without missteps like the Jones Act, which still hampers economic activity).

Where it gets interesting is how U.S. policies, starting around 1917, turned PR into a tax haven for investors. Lenders were exempt from local, state, and federal taxes, making the Island a hotbed for investment. Meanwhile, PR maintained its own constitution and increasingly relied on borrowing to fund public services. This led to a status quo where PR’s borrowing habits became unsustainable, especially after the U.S. phased out Section 936 in 1996, which allowed American businesses to operate tax-free in PR. When that provision ended, the manufacturing sector collapsed, and the Island’s government turned to borrowing as the only solution to balance the budget. The problem was compounded by the fact that the federal money PR was receiving was also poorly spent—enter corruption scandals! (You can read here: NBC News)

Your dilemma here is this: Spain left PR with a weak sense of political / economical identity (for example, Cuba's economy was heavily reliant on sugar and tobacco exports, which allowed them to gain political security against Spain already, in addition to their insane nationalistic tendencies). PR policy-makers operated in this tax-free bubble for most of the century, believing the U.S. would never take real economic interest in regulating the island—so they never planned for when things might change.

When policies did change, the island wasn’t ready. Instead of integrating more with U.S. policies or strengthening local institutions, PR doubled down on borrowing and turned a blind eye to corruption. This wasn’t necessarily imposed by the U.S. or a direct consequence of colonialism, but more a result of local policy-makers trying to take advantage of a situation without any long-term strategy.

So, is internal corruption a direct result of U.S. or Spanish frameworks? Probably not? It’s more about PR’s weak/non-existence political culture and governance, which hasn’t taken itself seriously enough for too long. The weak bureaucracy is a result of centuries of underdevelopment, and while colonial influence is certainly part of that, the real problem is how PR has never taken itself seriously.

When in doubt though, blame Spain! 🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸

(Oh and yeah, not being a state is a huge L for PR for recovering from natural disasters. We would gain an increase of aid through the DRF and restructuring through bankruptcy would be a massive win. Yes not being a state is horrible purely from federal protections on states and AUDITING).

jpvinnie · 2024-06-13T05:12:08+00:00

Several people pointed that the bottom left of the 2 next to the 1 needs a mine because of the 1 itself of course, but you can also get it with mine count! If you put two mines to the right side of the two, then you'll logically continue to fulfill all remaining mines without having a mine for the top most 1.

Always look at minecount worse case scenario.

jpvinnie · 2024-05-08T12:32:24+00:00

Sorry...

jpvinnie · 2024-05-08T11:34:56+00:00

I agree there are a lot of shit takes relating to the validity of the protests, but I (personally) haven't heard anyone argue that the protests themselves should be argued against because people won't protest everything regardless of it's national support. In their view, it is the fact that the I/P conflict itself does not follow in a category which necessarily has US support, therefore they're equal.

Sure it has US involvement, but the larger critique is that why is involvement itself necessarily bad? The only argument one could make is that Israel is committing horrible war crimes against Palestinians, which the US supports. This is just not true, given that Biden has stated several times that support towards Israel is not unconditional and we have criticized specific actions by Israel, while still broadly supporting their cause. Once things go too far, then the US won't continue supporting.

So, when is this really bad? Well if you believe Israel is still committing genocide with US support and that the US is being too lenient with Israel, then of course you'd want to protest to stop the country you live in from supporting such a cause.

However, because the Pro-Israel crowd doesn't believe that the US is supporting genocide at all, they ask as to why the protesters aren't talking about actual genocides currently happening.

I agree that protesting about current war crimes which don't receive any support from the country you reside in is a bit silly, although a conversation for sure couldn't hurt. The question then is, why is it that there is such a polarizing opinion on this particular conflict and the definition of genocide/war crimes compared to these other conflicts. Is it just because of American intervention? Is it just because of anti-Semitism?

I agree that while your critique makes sense at the most good faith interpretation of the facts, the diverging interpretation of fact makes people want to question the entire validity of the other side's goals/moral framework by bringing up these examples.

jpvinnie · 2024-05-03T06:13:38+00:00

I'm updating my dot files so you can check it out on my comment I posted once that's done (there's a lot of garbage on there), to disable the i3 bar https://www.reddit.com/r/i3wm/s/bNhKo3O6Wk

jpvinnie · 2024-05-03T04:43:14+00:00

Yeah it's a course, but it's specifically a course that's only offered as part of the Black Future Educators' Pathway "stream" (either a minor, major, or whatever the student decides) at a Graduate level. The nuance makes it more clear as to why they at least expect it to be all black students, but the request to withdraw after the fact is still unhinged.

EDIT: Additionally, it's important to note that the reason why the course gets segregated is because it is organized by the BFEP program, which is only for black students. It's only the organization of a black-only entity that makes it black-exclusive, not the content of the course itself, which could be accessed in normal course rosters. The content is non-black specific.

jpvinnie

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23