Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

NASA put a man on the Moon over half a century ago. Give us a call when a private company manages it.

NASA didn't build the rocket.  Private industry did.  You're confusing socialism with capitalism again.  In any case would you want to fly to the moon in a rocketship built by the lowest bidder?

[Alan Klein]

I know what I'm talking about cos I lived in Texas. Did you?

Only for eight months in San Antonio. 

[JoeKitchen]

and made it a colony of the United States.

They have voted in multiple referendums for statehood. It requires Congress to act. Congress has not done so. We're NOT being democratic about it.

Now there's some logic for you.

You're lying by omission here.  In the last referendum, only 23% of eligible voters voted, which cast great doubts on the validity of the vote.  That is why congress did not act. 

[jeremyrh]

NASA didn't build the rocket.  Private industry did.  You're confusing socialism with capitalism again.  In any case would you want to fly to the moon in a rocketship built by the lowest bidder?

Too ridiculous to be worth responding.

[faberryman]

Local building codes regulate those things.  You wouldn't want the federal government deciding on a single rule that affects a country the size of America with so many regions with differing climates. Maybe Britain where you live is different.  You really don't know America although you're always claiming to know more than Americans do about their own country.   The fact is most new homes are highly insulated in the USA.  You'd have to be crazy not to.  The cost of energy to heat and cool would cost a lot more.

I am going to go out on a limb and say most homes in the USA are not new homes, so it is pretty much pot luck whether the guy you bought your house from insulated the pipes or the attic or whatever. That's why you see all these advertisements in the mail for storm windows and doors and insulation and all the rest.

All the new houses have all that stuff because they are built to the current code which, unless I am mistaken, is government interfering with the free market. Of course, trade groups have a hand in devising the code, which usually means everything is over specified so you have to buy more stuff than you really need to meet code requirements.

[TechTalk]

You're lying by omission here.  In the last referendum, only 23% of eligible voters voted, which cast great doubts on the validity of the vote.  That is why congress did not act.

You're lying by omission here. I said that there had been multiple referendums. Congress has never acted on any of them.

In the last referendum (2020) 54.72% of eligible voters voted. Statehood won again by 52.52%.

[digitaldog]

NASA didn't build the rocket.  Private industry did.  You're confusing socialism with capitalism again.

Alan is of course confused again and NASA doesn't agree with him of course:

The Saturn V was a rocket NASA built to send people to the moon.
The Saturn V was developed at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. It was one of three types of Saturn rockets NASA built.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/rocketpark/saturn_v.html

And:

The Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at the Kennedy Space Center is a remarkable piece of history. Finished in 1966, the VAB spans 348,480 feet (32,374 meters), stands 525 feet (160 m) tall and is 518 feet (158 m) wide. This huge building was originally intended to house the Saturn V during final assembly before launch

https://www.space.com/38720-nasa-saturn-v-rocket-surprising-facts.html

But even if 100% of the Saturn rockets were not 'built/assembled by NASA', it's like saying "Ford doesn't build cars" because various parts come from vendors all over the planet.
The more he posts without checking, the more he gets wrong. 

[JoeKitchen]

You're lying by omission here. I said that there had been multiple referendums. Congress has never acted on any of them.

Nope, you are still lying by omission. 

There have been exactly five referendums.  Three of the five referendums voted against status.  It was only the 2012 and 2017 referendums that voted in favor of status.  However, these were non-binding and the voter turn out was not nearly large enough for the vote to be considered valid. 

If those in PR who want status really want it, they will need to get 51% or more voter turnout to be taken seriously, regardless of who is in congress.  The Dems controlled the Senate in 2012, and this did not even come up for a vote. 

[Alan Klein]

Nope. I just have the alarms that tell me when to run out. Sometimes I hope my house will burn down so I can get the insurance money. My property is such that it is worth the same whether it has a house on it or not. Quite a few houses sold in my neighborhood recently have immediately been torn been torn down and the owner then built a gigantic McMansion. My house burning down would actually be a financial bonanza. Besides, all my stuff would get burned up and I wouldn't have to move it. It would save all those gut wrenching decisions about what to keep and what to throw away. I'd just get new stuff when I moved into a new house. I have even been thinking about taking up smoking in bed as a hobby.

I know someone who could help you out if you're interested. 

This reminds me of the joke:

These two retirees meet in Florida, the Palm Beach area, and were discussing the businesses they were in.

"So Jack, what did you do before retiring?"

"Well, Morris, I was in the haberdashery business.  Unfortunately, we had a fire, the place burned down, I collected the insurance, and here I am."

"That's funny," said Jack.  "The same thing happened to me.  My shoe store had a flood and my business floated away.  So I collected the insurance and here I am."

Morris looked at Jack inquisitively and asked, "How do you make a flood?"

[TechTalk]

Nope, you are still lying by omission. 

There have been exactly five referendums.  Three of the five referendums voted against status.  It was only the 2012 and 2017 referendums that voted in favor of status.  However, these were non-binding and the voter turn out was not nearly large enough for the vote to be considered valid. 

If those in PR who want status really want it, they will need to get 51% or more voter turnout to be take seriously.

There have been exactly five six referendums. In the last referendum (2020) 54.72% of eligible voters voted. Statehood won again by 52.52%.

[JoeKitchen]

There have been exactly five six referendums. In the last referendum (2020) 54.72% of eligible voters voted. Statehood won again by 52.52%.

Apologies; I was not aware of that sixth vote.   

If that is the case, then they should get it. 

I believe status only require simple majorities in both the Senate and the House.  So, if they don't, then we know what party to blame. 

[faberryman]

You're lying by omission here.  In the last referendum, only 23% of eligible voters voted, which cast great doubts on the validity of the vote.  That is why congress did not act.

Why does 23% of eligible voters voting in an election cast doubt on the validity of the vote. Just because a lot of people are too lazy to get off the sofa and vote, probably because they don't care one way or the other, doesn't mean the vote is invalid.

By the way, in the 2020 statehood referendum, 54.72% of eligible voters voted. Is that percentage high enough for you? First it's Alan with his new and improved "clear cut" winner standard, and now you've got some "minimum percentage of registered voters voting for validity" standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum

Update:

TechTalk and Joe resolved the issue in the time it took me to type my response. What can I say. I'm am not a fast typist. That and, miracle of all miracles, I actually checked a few facts before I posted.

[Alan Klein]

Which begs the question of which groups you find less personable and why? Actually... never mind... I'm not interested.

Critical and nosey forum people. 

[JoeKitchen]

Why does 23% of eligible voters voting in an election cast doubt on the validity of the vote. Just because a lot of people are too lazy to get their butts off the sofa and vote, probably because they don't care one way or the other, doesn't mean the vote is invalid.

By the way, in the 2020 statehood referendum, 54.72% of eligible voters voted. Is that percentage high enough for you? First it's Alan with his new and improved "clear cut" standard, and now you've got some "minimum percentage of registered voters voting for validity" standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum

Ask congress, because both Republican and Democratic ones ignored PR in 2017 and 2012.  And not, I do not think something as important as status should be decided by less than a quarter of the voters. 

As I stated above your post, I was not aware of that vote until James pointed it out to me.  Given a 50+% turnout and vote for, I'd say they deserve it. 

I also read it only requires a simple majority in both houses, so if they fail to get status now, we know the Dems were all talk and no action. 

Considering that Puerto Ricans are majority conservative (by polling), I would not be surprised if the Dems go back on this due to a fear they could loose the Senate.

[Alan Klein]

and made it a colony of the United States.

They have voted in multiple referendums for statehood. It requires Congress to act. Congress has not done so. We're NOT being democratic about it.

Now there's some logic for you.

Well, I meant free of the US as a colony.  We could do that but that doesn't mean we have to make them a state. They could just become their own nation. 

[Alan Klein]

You're lying by omission here.  In the last referendum, only 23% of eligible voters voted, which cast great doubts on the validity of the vote.  That is why congress did not act. 

The Democrats will ignore the 23% and make them a state anyway.  The biased press will ignore that statistic and promote the idea because they're in the tank with them. 

[JoeKitchen]

The Democrats will ignore the 23% and make them a state anyway.  The biased press will ignore that statistic and promote the idea because they're in the tank with them.

Given the referendum last year, that was just brought to my attention, I feel congress should act. 

As I alluded to above though, PR would actually be a purple state and there is just as much of a chance (if not more so) they elect two Republican senators as Democratic ones.  With such a bare majority and a decent chance of loosing it, I am not holding my breath Schumer will now bring this to the floor, although he should. 

Plus it appears Biden plans on bankrupting his political capital on gun control for some reason even though it is a foregone conclusion that it will certainly fail. 


Although this does bring up another question, when a state is introduced, how do they decide on how to stagger the senators?  Will they both be elected at the same time with one know he will have a shorter term?  If so, how do they decide who gets the shorter term?  Or will PR start with one senator with the other being voted in two years later? 

[faberryman]

And not, I do not think something as important as status should be decided by less than a quarter of the voters.

Seems like to me that ought to be left up to the Puerto Ricans to decide. Of course, Congress could take voter participation into consideration if they wanted to, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the vote.

[Alan Klein]

I am going to go out on a limb and say most homes in the USA are not new homes, so it is pretty much pot luck whether the guy you bought your house from insulated the pipes or the attic or whatever. That's why you see all these advertisements in the mail for storm windows and doors and insulation and all the rest.

All the new houses have all that stuff because they are built to the current code which, unless I am mistaken, is government interfering with the free market. Of course, trade groups have a hand in devising the code, which usually means everything is over specified so you have to buy more stuff than you really need to meet code requirements.

Bulding codes are local, not imposed by the Federal government for the most part.  Local codes are how the community wants to live.  It decides zoning rules for example, where you can build commercial or not.  All that is a lot different than wanting the central government in Washington DC to decide.  It's similar with education.  Parents should decide how they want their kids taught not some so-called educator in Washington who's a political hack.  We've got enough hacks locally.   

Regarding building codes, I'm still upset with those who mandated 1.2 gpf toilets and low-flow showerheads.  We have plenty of water here in New Jersey.  Maybe that works for California where they need to steal water from their neighbors to get a drink. 

[digitaldog]

Texas ignored a report predicting power grid emergency for 10 years
Houston Chronicle reporter Zach Despart and University of Houston Energy Fellow Ed Hirs join Chuck Todd to discuss the power grid emergency.
https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/texas-ignored-a-report-predicting-power-grid-emergency-for-10-years-101183557871