Talk:Luis Fortuño

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Ideas

Would be useful if somebody (preferable academic) talk about his Ultra Conservative Ideas, and Discuss(with historical references in similar government) how these ideas will Worsen/Improve the weakening economic situation in the island, especially to middle class.

That's contentious, we need verifiable sources that talk about this. We can't just find someone who will write their opinion on here, even if they are from academia. We need to find external sources. Perhaps articles from Claridad? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Claridad as a verifiable source? A newspaper that is compromised with a political ideology to provide information for someone from another ideology? Not very reliable 131.94.223.135 (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced allegations to be discussed

I have transferred from the article for discussion the following unsourced allegations:

"===Links to the Abramoff scandal===

Resident Commissioner Luis G. Fortuño has also been involved in allegations from the local Puerto Rican press regarding campaign donations from several ranking members of the "Abramoff gang". Supposedly, Luis Fortuño accepted donations from Republicans like Jerry Weller, Tom Feeney, and Don Young, all of them linked in some way or another to Abramoff. Some speculations say that Fortuño ranks in the bottom tier of a coalition of Republicans that trades campaign donations for earmarks and approval of legislation which benefits Republican candidates. One of the controversial legislations is the confirmation of United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez, who was approved disregarding the due process of scrutiny from the Senate."

Highly inflammable political content such as this should be thoroughly sourced prior to placement in the article. Pr4ever (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to unsourced allegations

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia in which everyone from every kind of perspective is allowed to post information accordingly. The controversies section has just been updated with the actual references and videos that confirm the press inquiring Fortuno about the donations, articles about the issue and links to other sources. The text is not politically biased, it is an objective information that informs the reader about his controversies, just as the Acevedo Vila page has one section regarding the donation scandal. This section does not state that the speculations are a truthful fact, it is just a section to stress the importance of those allegations, whether they are true or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.172.189 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get ahead of ourselves

WP:CRYSTAL is clear. While no one doubts this event will happen, we should wait until after it happens later today to have a version that shows Fortuño as Governor. New user User:Republikaner most probably did the anonymous edits, and I hope he continues his productive editing (great work, if a bit early!) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Republican RC

Just noticed this- according to the intro, Fortuño is the second Republican RC, however, he is listed as the 5th in the article on PR's RC's. This disparity needs to be addressed.The Original Historygeek (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Seal of the Governor of Puerto Rico

With no previous discussion, someone removed the image of the Seal of the Governor of Puerto Rico. Users should have been allowed to comment on whether or not the seal should stay or go. If for no other reason, the seal should STAY because it makes the page much more visually attractive and is pertinent to the subject of the page. Remember, a page like this is downloaded and printed by schoolchildren looking for information for their school assignments and we can provide more thanm simply dry, staid text. I'd like to hear what others think. Pr4ever (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it from a purely uniformity viewpoint, it does not appear that any other state or territorial governor has the seal of his or her office or state in their article either, nor does Obama's. Just a thought. The Original Historygeek (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am always in favor of the use of the seals and emblems which represent the subjects discussed in their respective articles. In this case, of course I would agree that the seal should stay, however there is one small detail and that is that the image in question is not "public domain". The person who removed the image of the seal from the article stated the following: "No rationale for use in this article". Therefore, if an image of the seal is going to be used in the Honorable Fortuño's article, a PD image should be uploaded or in this case a "rationale" of usage in the article should be added in the image's page. Here is an example of a rationale that can be used:

Rationale for use in Luis Fortuño 1. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the Governor of Puerto Rico, a subject of public interest.

Tony the Marine (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

IP from the Goverment of Puerto Rico

I reverted an unsourced edit that was made by an IP 64.185.219.17 from the Office of Management and Budget (OGP) from the Goverment of Puerto Rico. IP data. Edits from this IP should be watch carefully. It should be noted that this people are using government resources to edit Wikipedia instead of working on the economy!!!! What a shame. --Jmundo (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth info in opening paragraph

I feel as though all of the info explaining PR's status as a commonwealth isn't particularly relevant to the article, and if it is, it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Thoughts? --Kevin W. 02:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It very much does belong in the opening paragraph, because PR has a unique status within the federal Union, and the Governor's role is also unique. More to the point, saying that PR is an "unincorporated territory" is simply completely, totally inaccurate and minimizes the importance and status of the role of the PR governor, the PR government and its unique status within the Federal Union and its place under the US Federal Constitution. PR is a self governing, incorporated and constitutional Commonwealth territory. It is by no reasonable political definition an "unincorporated" anything. As an example, American Samoa is an unincorporated, federally administered territory and even they have a governor. However, PR has a complete, autonomous, constitutional government with separated powers and branches of government that possesses the same essential (but not identical) structure as any constitutionally established federal state in the Union of the United States. It is more incorporated than the District of Columbia, which, although it finally got some semblance of home rule in the 1970's, is still subject to the whims of the US Congress, which can overrule anything that the DC Mayor and City Government does. Congress does not have that authority over the government of PR. PR has Commonwealth status in the US. Citizens of PR do not pay federal income tax, for instance, but they are full citizens of the United States, just as any citizen of any of the 50 states or the DC (with the possible exception of being eligible to run for US President - I need to look that one up). PR is a unique and completely formed self governing commonwealth territory within and under the Federal Constitution of the United States. It has different rules and status than any other entity in the Federal Union. Another good example is that the Resident Commissioner of PR (their non-voting member of Congress) is the only member of the House of Representatives who serves a four-year term instead of a two year term. This is another example of how the PR government is a unique entity. Among the US Territories, including the CNMI (which politically speaking is the closest territory to PR), only PR has these unique exceptions. To say PR is "unincorporated" means that all 50 states and DC are also equally "unincorporated". What makes PR politically unique is its status within the Federal Union. It is essentially neither fish (a state) nor fowl (an independent nation). Not coincidentally, one of PR's main domestic political issues is its status. As a Commonwealth they essentially get all the benefits of being in the US Federal System without many of the obligations (federal income taxes, excise taxes, etc.). There have been two main groups in the debate - those who believe that PR should be a full state, and those who believe that PR is a US colonial possession and is being oppressed by the US and think PR should be an independent nation (this second group were behind the terrorist attacks, and the attempted assassination of President Truman, in the 1950's). PR is a Commonwealth Territory of the United States. It is not an unincorporated territory - it is a fully incorporated, fully politically vested self governing Commonwealth Territory and a part of the United States under the US Federal Constitution. It is not "unincorporated" by any reasonable definition of the word. Themoodyblue (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When none other than the committee of jurisdiction the United States House of Representatives assumes a position contrary to yours, see: <http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:wsjU70VlW88J:www.senadopr.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/Informe%2520del%2520HR%25202499.pdf+HR+2499+Committee+Resources+Report&hl=en&gl=pr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj5z6T21cBQIEW-HqzuXAYJnVYcsZ1lDtEnelelMM2YnZmryzuullY3gKTcBHphO2YyapaYbfpz8DzZLB8NYA6F7OgMxmE3VmdkIteCcUq4NjU2gEQpT0YEV6kHPbMyjPqDujZq&sig=AFQjCNFvxkXxP5BytX46v6boeBCenjO6WQ>, your position clearly cannot be considered a "consensus" position.

Whether you like it or not, Puerto Rico is consided an unincorporated territory of the United States, has been for 111 years, and its political status has remained the same since 1898. A majority of Puerto Ricans want to change that, but until that happens, we are what we are.

This issue has been discussed ad nauseaum in several different wikipedia pages relating to Puerto Rico and, trust me, the consensus reached throughout does not support the language you had inserted in this article.

Puerto Rico has no autonomy that a state doesn't have. The alleged "fiscal autonomy" is turned on and off by Congress at its whim, for example, when it blew Sec. 936 out of the water in 1995, or when it takes its time to renew the rum tax carry over, now scheduled to expire in December. Pr4ever (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, well since you clearly know more than every one else on this site combined, then go ahead. It is arrogant jackasses such as yourself that make wikipedia get slammed as the domain of no nothing idiots, which is far from true. The 1/10th of 1 percent of the people on this site are like you, and your arrogance and complete insecurity in even possibly being wrong is what makes the other 99.9% of the people on wikipedia, who are trying to provide accurate information, look like you to outside observers. You are a complete waste of time and effort and I am not wasting anymore time dealing with you and your complete ignorance of your subject nor your arrogance of personality. Go away. Themoodyblue (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Watch it Themoodyblue. The issue has been abundantly addressed, and it doesn't belong on this page. Make yourself comfortable with Wikipedia:No personal attacks before posting on Wikipedia again. --Jmundo (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph cleanup

I have simplified the first paragraph, removing superfluous POV content, as well as the clearly incorrect statement that the NPP is closely aligned to the GOP.

First of all, the NPP is not aligned to any national party. While two of the Governors it has elected, Ferré and Fortuño, are Republicans, two of the Governors it has elected, Romero and Rosselló, are Democrats. Fortuño's running mate, Pedro Pierluisi, as well as the person he appointed as his first in line of succession, Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, are Democrats! The excised statement was totally incorrect.

Second, consensus within multiple Puerto Rico-related articles in Wikipedia is that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. Several of the excised statements are totally incorrect. Unincorporated territories DO have governors (Guam and the USVI, for example), and Puerto Rico is not the only non-state Commonwealth in the US (do not forget the CNMI).

Before trying to reinsert extraneous or superfluous material in the first graph, editors should seek consensus through a discussion in this page! Pr4ever (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my concerns. --Kevin W. 05:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

- Pr4ever and Kevin, the territories that you name do have governors, but none are autonomous, as PR is, especially the USVI, Guam or Saipan. The structure of the CNMI is similar, but they do not possess the same status as PR does, and cannot independently establish a referendum on their future status, as PR can. That is one reason that PR's status in the union continues to be a controversy between independence and statehood. No other US territory has the autonomy for the statehood v. independence issue to be an issue, nor can any other territory vote, essentially for either full union or seccesion should their fully autonomous government choose to put the issue to a vote. If that were to happen, the Federal Government of the United States would have no say about it what so ever. Only PR has the autonomous authority to have a referendum on the issue that would have any binding credence. That autonomy is what makes PR a unique political entity with the US Union, and the governor's role a unique one.

While I agree that consensus is important, you pronouncing that we do or do not have one is simply not authoritative. Also, there is something else that is just as important as consensus - accuracy. What you are claiming to be the "facts" is simply inaccurate. Please do your political science homework and research and find out what the facts are before you go gutting someone else's contribution. Any consensus must be one that agrees on the accurate facts. With all due respect, your opinion does not constitute a consensus simply because you say so. Themoodyblue (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pr4ever is talking about consensus in the Puerto Rican related articles. Fact: the territorial clause gives the United States Congress the final power over every territory of the United States. Fact: U.S. Congress allowed Puerto Rico to draft its own Constitution which was approved and modified by the US Congress. More facts and external sources can be found at Political status of Puerto Rico or Puerto Rico where this discussion belong. --Jmundo (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PRSSA info removal

The removal of the historical information regarding the Governor's leadership role in the Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association is inapproppriate, since that facet of his life is one he mentions often, the information about his incursion in politics very early in life dispels the mistaken impression that he "parachuted" into public life after a successful business career, and that organization was the one that produced some of the most prominent members of his current inner circle, including Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, deputy Secretary of State José Rodriguez Suarez, communications czar Francisco Cimadevilla, chief of staff Marcos Rodriguez Ema, among others. Pr4ever (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

National aspirations 2012?

Gov. Fortuño was mentioned this week by a reputable Newsweek blogger and a well-known Republican figure, Grover Norquist, as a fascinating long-shot potential member of the 2012 Republican ticket.

Due to its noteworthiness, I have placed a reference to this in the introductory paragraph, since this is not a locally-generated possibility but one that appears in a reputable blog, citing a reputable national Republican figure.

I admit that this is as long a shot as talk four years ago that our nation would have in the foreseable future an African-American president! Pr4ever (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/25/absurdly-premature-2012-watch-vol-2-the-governor-of-puerto-rico-for-president.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.68.163 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)