Puertoricans are American citizens by name only - they can’t vote, for example. It’s a colony, and US treats it as such - it doesn’t enjoy the privileges of actual US territory.
If you want to help, becoming a proper, independent country could be a good start. The majority of citizens opposes the current colonial status, as evidenced by several referendums, but, well, it’s not theirs to decide - because they are just a colony and aren’t allowed to vote.
Puertoricans wear the same uniform and fight in the same wars as all Americans so that folks can continue to say ignorant stuff like the comment above. My great grandfather did it. My grandfather. I did it. And I’m sure the tradition will continue.
From Title 8-ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12-IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III-NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Part I-Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.
It's not that the people of Puerto Ricans are lesser americans. It's that Puerto Rico itself as an institution has less rights. If a Puerto Rican moves to Alabama, they get the same rights and privileges, like voting, as anybody else.
Yes, they get to die for the USA. But they don't get a say like real citizens - no congressmen, no electoral votes, no senators. They do get to pay taxes though. Before you rant about how that's not important, I'd like to remind you of a certain group of English citizens who didn't have representation but were allowed to die and pay taxes for England.
Real is probably the wrong term here, but certainly a citizen without the full suite of rights granted to you. If you have all the obligations without all the rights, you are a second class citizen. It's frankly absurd that someone can live within the US as a "citizen" without getting have meaningful representation.
Many Americans are second-class citizens because they live in areas where even if they DID vote, it wouldn't count for anything.
If Puerto Rico and DC were suddenly made part of California, nothing would change but suddenly they'd be "first class citizens"? (Besides now paying federal income tax)
That's just factually not true. Yes, the presidential election is fucked because the electoral college means that >70% of americans' votes are meaningless, but at the state and local level elections make a HUGE difference. And yes, that's not ideal, but it's a bit flippant and defeatist to write off all elections just because the presidential elections are screwed up.
In the strictest sense of the word they _are_, but they lose a significant portion of their rights as citizens, even after serving their mandated sentence and "paying their debt to society" or whatever. I would actually argue that ex-cons aren't citizens in the practical sense specifically because they lose out on a bunch of rights they could freely exercise before their conviction.
And before we get into a debate about whether ex-cons "deserve" rights, their sentence is supposed to be them paying their debt to society. Why shouldn't their rights be restored after that?
That's a different argument though. Punished or not, they are still citizens - so clearly whether you can or cannot vote doesn't change your citizenship.
> Real is probably the wrong term here, but certainly a citizen without the full suite of rights granted to you.
I acknowledged the thing you are objecting to before you started objecting. If you want to bikeshed a loosely used term after it's been acknowledged as being the incorrect term - have fun.
NOT a colony.... we're a territory. If you think puerto rico becoming it's own country and missing out on the aid, support and ease of travel provided by the federal government you are either malevolent or naive.
Puerto Rican residents can vote on everything aside from federal elections.
"Vote on everything aside federal elections" - what precisely did you think this means? We can't vote for the president, our elected officials to Congress can't vote on the laws that are passed. What "voting" can we do, other than yes, local elections?
> Puerto Rican residents can vote on everything aside from federal elections.
So, a colony? Taxation without representation. We might not get taxed IRS federal planillas, but all the levies and duties plus the harmful Jones Act beg to differ with your characterization.
The US is choking our economy in its current status. Statehood or independence, a binding referendum is urgent at this point.
Oh, and don't you remember how the US Supreme Court declared us second-class citizens recently? [0]
Yukon is a territory. Here, the "territory" is just a pretty name for a colony. You can't vote, US constitution doesn't quite apply, you're getting peanuts from federal aid, and when there's a humanitarian catastrophe you're left for a month without electricity - but you are very welcomed in armed forces, because you're competent and when you die it doesn't matter to decision makers, because you can't vote. In short - you pay the price, but you don't get the benefits. How's that different from a colony?
And yeah, becoming a US state would be better than independence, but it won't happen, because - you guessed it, you can't vote. By becoming an independent country you could get major powers to compete to do business with you - I'm pretty sure China would invest billions into your infrastructure, you could literally become America's Taiwan.
> You can't [...] you're getting peanuts [...] you can't vote
It kinda feels like you're trying to shame Puerto Ricans for being the USA's bitches or something but I don't think that's reasonable. Puerto Ricans are US citizens and can move anywhere in the USA which is not only valuable and lets them send money home but shows that they're respected as just other Americans.
> By becoming an independent country you could get major powers to compete to do business with you - I'm pretty sure China would invest billions into your infrastructure, you could literally become America's Taiwan.
Leave the one country that helps you, though maybe not enough, to be the puppet of their enemy. Like that's not going to end in pain, but that's not your concern as an outsider trying to accelerate chaos.
How did the US acquire said territory? And after they acquired it, what did they do to those who did not want their nation to be a "territory?" For those unaware, I'll give you a hint: it did not involve a hearty Socratic discussion followed by a game of badminton [0].
> If you think puerto rico becoming it's own country and missing out on the aid, support and ease of travel provided by the federal government you are either malevolent or naive.
This worked out rather well for the Hawaiians, who are currently having their groundwater poisoned by the US military [1], and their ancestral land acquired by mainlanders while they are made homeless [2].
In the recent non-binding referenda, and the bill to have a binding referendum which recently died in committee, there has been an option for "independence with free association" -- that is, an independent nation-state but with strong free trade and free travel agreements baked in [2]. Statehood is that, plus being subject to the whims of voters in Wisconsin, Idaho, et al. as to whether Puerto Ricans should be allowed funding for things. Keep in mind that there is no way out of this setup short of insurrection.
Given Puerto Rico has a distinct language, culture, etc. from the US, I can only assume we're deciding that the Westphalian model of the nation-state is not a consideration. Given this, I would also like to propose the following for statehood:
1. Korea
2. Vietnam
3. Iraq
4. Iran
5. Afghanistan
6. Somalia
7. Syria
8. Mexico
9. Haiti
10. Dominican Republic
These countries would surely flourish with the support and aid provided by the US federal government. And they were already, at one point or another, occupied by the US. So I can think of no reason not to annex them, short of naïveté or malevolence.
America acquired it fair and square, the same way nearly all land is acquired throughout human and animal history. Conquest. Those other areas haven't been annexed in the same way, because, after developments in the post WW2 era, acquisition evolved from outright colonization, to control using local proxies and a comprador class economically dependent on the core.
> Puertoricans are American citizens by name only - they can’t vote, for example.
The veterans who died for the continental US beg to differ.
> If you want to help, becoming a proper, independent country could be a good start.
The US government has the full might of the US military, a reluctant political class and an economic interest in keeping it that way. It's difficult -- whether you're pro-statehood or independence.
The arrangement of Puerto Rico being a territory was a strategic decision. PR independence has a long history, but ultimately the economic and military benefits of being US citizens ended up outweighing the desire for independence. Being a self governing territory won out as being a sort of best of both worlds.
Those attacks are pointless from military point of view. Their objective is to spread terror among civilians, since orcs can’t effectively fight against proper army.
> Their objective is the targetting of specific individuals who are involved in the conflict, wherever they are.
If they could target specific individuals they definitely would, just like Ukrainian forces killed many high ranking officers (including generals). The fact they don't is just proof they can't.
How do you know they're not targetting specific individuals? You don't actually know - but they do say they are specifically going after "those responsible for the terror attacks on Russia" ..
Note, I do not support Russia in this conflict - I am against all war, including ours! (West) But it is important to not mis-underestimate ones' enemy - and we don't know for sure that they aren't using the drones to target their terrorists - just like the USA has done, essentially every twenty minutes for the last twenty years.
I know, because it wouldn’t make any sense for them to do it - there aren’t any specific individuals they could target to make any difference to them - and they don’t have the capacity to. Comparing Russian army to American is just silly, and proves you’re not following the situation at all.
Once again - how do you explain Russia taking worst losses since WW2 and not being able to do anything about it, if they had any capacity to prevent it?
Russia, up to this point, has lacked in manpower, but has plenty of equipment (questionable quality, sure, but they do have it). Ukraine has had the opposite problem, but they've been receiving heavy training and equipment from NATO. Now that Ukraine has built up stockpiles and trained enough people they are mobilizing and retaking territory. However, with the Russian conscription underway, there's no saying if that momentum will continue.
Ukraine will still have an advantage in numbers, but if the war drags on too long they risk losing some political/material support, as the economic war has hit Europe especially hard (US support can/will probably continue indefinitely, though). There have already been many times in the past months when European leaders called for negotiations and ceasefire according to domestic political shifts, so I think this is a big "hidden" danger for UA.
I’m not sure about the “plenty of equipment”. Case in point - over the past six months there have been _ten_ Russian plane crashes caused by malfunctions. Even though they almost don’t use their aviation because of lack of air superiority.
This point of view is agitprop. You don't know they are not targetting individuals with the drones - but it serves your desires to assume otherwise. The USA also uses drone attacks against terrorists - do you think those are always 100% accurate, also?
Putin had a whole bunch of opportunities to withdraw and minimize his losses, and didn’t take any of them. At the same time it’s been obvious for some time now that there’s no way he can win.
One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.
I may be completely wrong, but looking back at history, at people in similar situations, my take on it is that he's faced with what is for him an unacceptable outcome, but where there is no way to avoid it : in this situation, people try and delay and defer, rather than facing it.
I think it's only that, nothing more sophisticated. He won't give up, because it's so unpleasant, but he can't win, so he's in limbo. The war continues until Ukraine and the West push Russia out of Ukraine.
> One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.
Interesting perspective, and it makes sense. There's probably less shame in losing to the most powerful alliance in the world, than losing to a former vassal.
This might actually increase the chance of him using tactical nukes; that's the surefire way to get NATO involved. But ideally he'll want to lose just barely to NATO; he doesn't want to get completely destroyed. That's probably why he's escalating one small step at a time.
I’m not sure if using nukes would get NATO directly involved. First, it would be counterproductive wrt Putin’s goal above. Second, it could provoke strikes against NATO - Russia stands no chance militarily, but they can still kill civilians. Third, I don’t think isn’t even necessary - looking at experiences so far, Ukraine is more than capable of wiping the floor with Russian army, provided they get the hardware necessary. So far NATO has been very (way too much imho) careful to only provide Ukraine with defensive weapons; they didn’t give them cruise missiles or fighter jets, for example. Likewise Ukraine so far avoided striking anything that’s not strictly a military target. Nuclear strike would probably change that.
I don't think there's any way NATO can afford not to respond to the offensive use of nuclear weapons in a war of conquest, just outside their borders, against a friendly nation. But as long as it's a small, tactical nuke, I think NATO's response will be conventional, but still big enough to cripple all Russian positions in Ukraine, and possibly more.
This is simply not true. Russia withdrew its regular army months ago - whats fighting now are non-regular forces (mercenaries, etc.) in order to keep the battlefield 'soft' while the next offensive is being planned.
Its not good to believe ones own propaganda, and we in the West are extremely propagandized about this action. Russia hasn't applied the full forces of its war machines to Ukraine - yet. Its a "special military operation" because Putin is limited by Russia's democracy as to what he can apply.
Escalating to actual war policies is whats happening right now. Once the ground freezes in Ukraine (within the next few weeks), there will be another round of attacks from Russia - this time, with all the 'terrorist attacks on the Russian state', Putins' gloves will be coming off. We in the West don't understand that what we incorrectly perceive as a "failed military invasion" is really just the first round in a 'special military operation' that has to scale up to war before Russia's full war machine is activated. We want to believe it was a failed full-blown war - the truth is, its just the beginning ..
Strange. As far as rest of the world knows, Ukraine fought a spectacular counteroffensive against Russia's elite tank division (4th Guards) near Izyum just a few weeks ago, took many of them prisoners and captured 100 or so of their best tanks and hundreds of APCs.
That was hardly a decisive victory, and Russia has not applied the full forces of its military in this "operation" - yet.
Its a "special military operation", meaning Putin is limited as to what he can order into the field. Now that he has the justification of "terrorist attacks on Russia", he can escalate - and this is precisely what is about to happen. When the ground freezes in Ukraine, an even more lethal Russian force will be applied to what is now more of a war and less of a 'special operation'.
Me saying this does not mean I agree with it - I find all of it heinous. But those of you addicted to your Western propaganda need to understand that it is very, very dangerous to suck up your own agitprop and consider it the one Holy Truth™. You'd be a lot wiser if you actually paid attention to what Russia, itself, has to say about the situation - not that you can, given the censorship regime being imposed on you by your own military, alas...
Of course it was, Kupiansk is a very important railway junction[1] and the whole front collapsed after it was captured. Speed of the operation was nothing short of amazing. In mere days Ukraine liberated more than Russia had captured in months of heavy fighting with insane losses, worst since WW2. In large parts of Ukraine's northeast, Russia was pushed back to state border and there is virtually no fighting anymore beyond sporadic Russian revenge attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. This is dictionary definition of a decisive victory. Russian forces have left the Sumy-Kharkiv region and the fighting over Ukraine's north-east has finished.
> and Russia has not applied the full forces of its military in this "operation" - yet.
Why are police officers dragging pilots from airliner cockpits[2] and sending as cannon fodder to the frontlines if there is no desperate shortage of manpower? Why is Putin's right-hand man touring prisons to recruit rapists and murderers?[3] The clock is ticking on Kherson and it is only a question of time when Ukraine will liberate it, Ukraine already conducted a successful limited operation and liberated a lot of ground north of Kherson. Why isn't the "full force" brought in to stop the humiliating series of defeats?
> You'd be a lot wiser if you actually paid attention to what Russia, itself, has to say about the situation - not that you can, given the censorship regime being imposed on you by your own military, alas...
I don't think even Russian MoD claims that there is no Russian regular army in Ukraine. Who told you that?
>Why isn't the "full force" brought in to stop the humiliating series of defeats?
Because Putin doesn't have the power to do such a thing: he is not a dictator, Western agitprop notwithstanding.
Same reason Bush had to invent a phony "war on terror" excuse to get around the requirement that he get - democratically - Congress' permission to declare war on the world.
>I don't think even Russian MoD claims that there is no Russian regular army in Ukraine. Who told you that?
The Russians themselves. You probably don't have access to their statements, though .. or haven't tried very hard to find them yourself.
This was a "special military operation" because Putins Presidency is not a total dictatorship. Conditions for declaring total war were not in place - they are now, however. The West likes to think this "special military operation" represents the totality of Russian military power being applied - and failing - but this is a very, very dangerous mistake to make.
Ah. Now I suspect I know what you're talking about: the terror campaign. Essentially what Russia did in Syria - they don't stand a chance against a proper army, but they definitely can commit genocide and level entire cities, like they did in Mariupol.
So, yes, indeed, they are starting to do it again. But because they have already spent most of the tools they could use to do it - we know that because they are forced to use very expensive weapons in a way that doesn't make any sense, like attacking ground targets using anti-ship missiles - it will quickly fizzle out. They got one last push using Iranian ghetto-drones, but even those are in limited quantity - all of this stuff depends on western parts.
Keep your hate-filled agit-prop to yourself and try to stay rational. I'm not rooting for Russia - I'm trying to indicate you are in danger of mis-underestimating your enemy - a fatal mistake to make!
I'm not mentioning "terrorist attacks on Russian state" because I agree that thats what they are - I am 100% anti-war, no matter who is fighting it - but that is what Russia's democratic process requires in order to authorize an escalation of its "special military operation" to a broader war-fighting stance. In precisely the same way that the USA needed terrorist attacks to justify its own special military operations around the world, Russia has the very same condition in its own democratic processes - and whether you like it or not, Russia is just as democratic as the USA - they just don't vote for people you like.
Whether you agree or not, Russia has not applied the full forces of its military to this "special operation" - this will happen in the next few weeks, now that the political conditions within Russia are in place to authorize the use of such force. You don't really think Putin can just dictate that a war happen - just like the USA, Putins' power is limited by democratic processes.
Know Your Enemy! Putins' hands have been tied thus far - once the gloves come off, you might change your mind about Russia's weaknesses ...
You say they haven't applied the full force of its military, but considering how spent the Russian forces are, it's not at all clear that Russia really has significantly more forces that can be used. Other than nukes, of course.
> Putins' power is limited by democratic processes.
The processes in Russia aren't very democratic, considering the way Putin controls the media and locks up the opposition. But you're right that his power isn't absolute; no power ever is. If too many Russians rebel against him, his security apparatus won't save him. On top of that, he needs to keep the support of the military, Wagner, the nationalist, and various other groups, and if he loses that support, he's also lost. So he has to be careful and ensure he keeps sufficient domestic justification for what he does.
How spent are the Russian forces? They haven't even applied 15% of their full forces to this operation, Western agitprop notwithstanding.
>The processes in Russia aren't very democratic, considering the way Putin controls the media and locks up the opposition.
At least as democratic as the West.
He has not had the power he needs to field a full war-fighting force - only "special military operations" capabilities. The longer this war goes on, the more justification ("Ma' Terrorists!") he has to pull off the gloves.
3 weeks from now, we will see what that looks like. I'd wager its going to be a much different scenario than the current "special military operation".
(NOTE: I am not pro-Russia - I am 100% anti-war.. ALL war, including our own heinous drone attacks on civilians...)
>How spent are the Russian forces? They haven't even applied 15% of their full forces to this operation
This is in stark contrast to what analysts are saying, which is that Russia already _lost_ about half of its military. Visually confirmed losses of Russian tanks alone are over one thousand units. Russians are so desperate they had to introduce mandatory conscription, despite it being a suicide from political point of view.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and you hadn’t provided a single source that would support your view.
>as democratic as West
Lol, no. Russia isn’t even a dysfunctional democracy; it lacks basic prerequisites to become one. You’re probably imagining Russia is kind of like Eastern Europe, only poorer. It’s not - the "cultural distance” between Russia and, say, Poland is much greater then between Poland and, say, UK.
Analysts - on TV - are telling you what to think: because its their job to spread propaganda and make the general public think what is necessary for the Pentagon to get its wishes.
Make the effort to get past the propaganda wall and you will see a much different picture.
Paul Stephan agreed that there is a distinction between democracy and liberalism in Russia: "Russia enjoys robust democratic institutions at least as vigorous as Japan, Korea, Italy, France, and Germany."
No, but if the other side's official state media is admitting that they might have screwed up mass conscription in their desperate haste whilst nationalist bloggers fume about military defeats and the government threatening them for reporting on them, whilst you're arguing things are going smoothly for them and the reason they're losing territory they now claim to be Russia's is because they casually withdrew their 85% of their army for unexplained "democratic" reasons, you have no interest in truth.
Maybe you're only paying attention to the narrative that suits your prejudice.
Fact: it was a "special military operation" - this is not the same as an all-out war/invasion. Putins' hands were tied as to what he could deploy - the West has successfully used its propaganda outlets to parley this as 'Russia military is a fail'. That conclusion is premature - when Russia fields a full war force, the story may be different.
Fact: The army was withdrawn to prevent further civilian casualties in the regions that have already suffered 8 years of catastrophic war, involving the massacre of civilians by armed forces.
As to your appeal to authority figures on TV, I can only assume you are unwilling to make an effort to look further than the idiot box for information, and are therefore not really arguing in good faith. I suggest you peak around the curtains and try not to get distracted by the broken mirrors ..
The idea that they withdrew from lightly populated Kharkiv and northern Kherson regions they occupied to new positions in the cities to "protect civilians" is ... inventive.
As to your severe reading comprehension difficulties, if you're having to pretend that I'm talking about "authority figures on TV" when I'm pointing out that Russian nationalists on Telegram and Russian state media aren't as enthusiastic about Russia's war as you are, it's not because your cliche ridden contrarianism is coming from a place of actual knowledge...
>Russian nationalists on Telegram and Russian state media
"actual knowledge"
Anyone can pretend to be a Russian nationalist on Telegram, and Russian state media is not as "Russian state" as you'd like to think.
Perhaps your call-to-authority proclivity should result in you paying actual attention to what the Russian generals, themselves, are saying - not that you would have access to that in the current censorship regime you seem to be particularly enamoured of ..
Which Russian generals? I mean, Kadryov and Prizoghin whose factions are doing much of the fighting are quite openly accusing the military of cowardice and incompetence (maybe they're Western agents too?). Lapin's too busy making PR videos proving that he is not, in fact, hiding from the war and mourning his son's sad loss due to mutinying conscripts (recruiting people who'd rather suicide massacre their comrades than fight in the war is a sure sign Russia is holding back all their best troops!) Then there's numerous ones who've been dismissed from their posts? Not an awful lot about the mythical million well trained troops with excellent equipment who are somehow more politically difficult to mobilise than middle class middle aged Muscovites who did their national service for the USSR and Belarussian T62s
If you're having to disregard Russian media and all the most popular Russian milbloggers and the guy who started the Donbas conflict as Western propagandists to satisfy your dreams of dead Ukranians, maybe it's not everyone else in the world that's wearing blinkers....
It is. And, as a matter of fact, the inoculation of oak trees and truffles is a carefully guarded secret of the INRA (https://www.inrae.fr). There is no natural occurrences of truffles outside the south of France, Italy and Spain.
> Chinese truffles (Tuber indicum), that is, a close relative of the French black truffle (Tuber melanosporum) [...] even ripe Chinese truffles are not wonderful [...] Although it doesn’t have the same powerful aroma or strong flavor, it’s a close approximation.
This is very much a standard damage control. Notice how the drone completely ignored actual problems and instead derailed the whole thread with fake ones and broken analogies.
>If you're in mainland China and the authorities decide they need to confiscate your phone, you're already fscked.
Funny how you specifically mention China, as if it worked differently in USA - the country where you can get four years of jail time for talking back to police.
Google, being US-based company, is legally obliged to provide all the data they have to three letter agencies, without any real oversight. They can’t refuse even if they wanted.
Regardless, I care less about the US government having my info than, say, Russia (especially being part Ukrainian, having Ukrainian friends and family, etc...).
Many things are replaced by better iterations, but plenty of large frameworks are still around. I was thinking of tooling like npm, webpack, react, redux, heck even vim, emacs, linux. It’s easy to forget that linux was the target of the same kind of derision back in the days.
My main worry is, this can put Taiwan at risk. One of the incentives for China to avoid any kind of military conflict is that the price to pay for Chinese export-oriented economy would be prohibitive. Now they might be forced to pay that price anyway.
And sadly, this makes it yet another example of US trying to incite war.
On the other hand, if it’s bad enough, perhaps it could get China to respond by eg voiding American IP rights for stuff sold in Asia? That would be a tremendous win to the world as a whole.
There’s also the realization they are wasting literally half of their lifetime doing stuff that’s mostly either evil or useless. Bit like those Lenin busts factory workers.
If you want to help, becoming a proper, independent country could be a good start. The majority of citizens opposes the current colonial status, as evidenced by several referendums, but, well, it’s not theirs to decide - because they are just a colony and aren’t allowed to vote.