HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "And the population of Pu...

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 08:43 AM

"And the population of Puerto Rico is bigger than 6 of these states COMBINED." PR needs statehood.

In regards to this OP I posted..
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215366436

It's probably bad form and/or a DU rules violation to call out fellow DUers in a post in a negative way, but this is to say thanks. A positive shout-out!

A wise DUer by the name of Mackdaddy called out the fact that I left out PR when calling for DC statehood. Mackdaddy is right!.

His reply..

"And the population of Puerto Rico is bigger than 6 of these states COMBINED.

With a population of about 3.2 million it is bigger than any of these states listed by several times.

But no real representation for all of these US Citizens?"

So very true.

The point, PR and DC need statehood. Anything less is a violation of the human rights of all of their citizens.

52 replies, 2226 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply "And the population of Puerto Rico is bigger than 6 of these states COMBINED." PR needs statehood. (Original post)
Imallin4Joe Apr 2021 OP
brooklynite Apr 2021 #1
Kaleva Apr 2021 #2
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #3
Kaleva Apr 2021 #4
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #11
JT45242 Apr 2021 #5
qazplm135 Apr 2021 #7
JT45242 Apr 2021 #13
qazplm135 Apr 2021 #15
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #21
uponit7771 Apr 2021 #19
qazplm135 Apr 2021 #23
uponit7771 Apr 2021 #27
qazplm135 Apr 2021 #30
uponit7771 Apr 2021 #44
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #46
uponit7771 Apr 2021 #47
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #49
uponit7771 Apr 2021 #50
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #52
Imallin4Joe Apr 2021 #6
qazplm135 Apr 2021 #8
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #12
qazplm135 Apr 2021 #16
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #17
colsohlibgal Apr 2021 #9
catsudon Apr 2021 #14
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #18
former9thward Apr 2021 #22
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #25
former9thward Apr 2021 #26
marie999 Apr 2021 #29
former9thward Apr 2021 #39
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #34
former9thward Apr 2021 #38
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #40
former9thward Apr 2021 #51
Cuthbert Allgood Apr 2021 #32
Hortensis Apr 2021 #10
Elessar Zappa Apr 2021 #28
Hortensis Apr 2021 #33
UTUSN Apr 2021 #20
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #24
WarGamer Apr 2021 #37
UTUSN Apr 2021 #45
dsc Apr 2021 #31
WarGamer Apr 2021 #36
dsc Apr 2021 #41
Effete Snob Apr 2021 #42
Kid Berwyn Apr 2021 #48
WarGamer Apr 2021 #35
dsc Apr 2021 #43

Response to Imallin4Joe (Original post)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 08:45 AM

1. The issue with PR is that it's not clear that the citizens want Statehood...

They seem divided between Statehood, Territory and Independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 08:49 AM

2. Same thing with the American Revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 08:54 AM

3. ...in which many persons who remained loyal to the British moved to Canada


Where are you suggesting we transport the Puerto Ricans who do not agree with the OP's plans for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:03 AM

4. The Loyalists moved on their own accord

The new United States did not decide where they were to go nor did they provide transportation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:46 AM

11. I guess they'll just swim away then

However, it might be worth relocating the dissenters, so they don’t become troublemakers. Although putting them down with force might be cheaper.

The last time the Capitol was violently invaded was when PR nationalists fired shots from the visitor’s gallery. Statehood would definitely draw them out again, so there may be a need to confront a newly-motivated nationalist effort, if the status quo is to be eliminated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:10 AM

5. They literally just voted in November

Statehood won. They did decide.

If you want a unanimous decision go back to the Articles of confederation, the only time that the federal government was as dysfunctional as it has been since McTurtle came to power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:13 AM

7. No

That had minimal voter participation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 10:53 AM

13. 55% voter turnout same as 2016 election votes per ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood_Referendum_(2020)

This was about the same range as is typical for American elections in general per wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections#:~:text=239%20million%20people%20were%20eligible,ballots%2C%20totaling%20about%20158%20million.

If people do not show up to vote -- well we know what happened when people did not show up in 2016.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 11:37 AM

15. first, it was a nonbinding resolution

so no it wasn't a real vote for statehood.

Second, no I don't think barely over half voting is enough.

There needs to be a sizeable percentage of the population voting.

Particularly when only 5 percent separated yes from no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 11:56 AM

21. "If people do not show up to vote..."


What is that supposed to mean?

There has never been a vote in Puerto Rico that would result in statehood.

There have been non-binding polls on that question, and a hopelessly-convoluted two-part set of questions on a previous referendum, but to say "If they don't show up to vote, then they live the consequences" makes no sense when the vote itself is designed to have no actual consequences.

There are people in PR who want independence.

There are people in PR who want the status quo.

There are people in PR who want statehood.

Which ones appointed anyone on DU to speak for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 11:53 AM

19. So did OK and its still a state, that's not a relevant metric

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 12:04 PM

23. it is

in this day and age when we care about such things a wee bit more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 12:40 PM

27. OK's EC's counted with low turnout so does PRs voting on that issue. Turnout isn't

... a metric for the US especially republicans they want it as low as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 01:40 PM

30. So

I'll mark you down as someone who doesn't care about things like making sure a majority of ALL PRs want statehood

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:43 PM

44. You're conflating participation and want

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:58 PM

46. And you are conflating elections and results


You are correct that "turnout doesn't matter".

They turned out. They voted. They remain not a state.

At no point have Puerto Ricans ever voted in an election that would determine whether Puerto Rico would become a state.

Comparing that to electoral college votes in the presidential election, as you have done, completely ignores the fact that, yes, that was an election to select those electoral college votes.

But the vote in Puerto Rico was not a vote to become a state. Obviously it wasn't because, quite clearly, the vote was held and PR is not a state.

If you tell me that my town is having a vote to decide whether to burn down my house, but you also tell me "They won't really burn down your house even if that wins", then I'm not really going to give much of a shit what the election results say, and I doubt I'd even go vote.

You are right, elections have consequences regardless of turnout. So, the election was held, and the consequences are bupkis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 03:02 PM

47. So black people in America don't want some issues? Come on, we can't participate at the rate

... white people do because republicans make it hard to.

No, that poll is good biding or not ... PR should be a state

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 03:31 PM

49. WTF?


I doubt that Puerto Rico is discouraging the rate at which Puerto Ricans participate in their own elections.

Puerto Ricans should have the opportunity to engage in actual democratic decisionmaking about their future in a process to which they agree to be bound by the result, and not have people in the mainland make various assumptions about them for narrow partisan purposes based on what are largely stereotypical assumptions about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #49)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 03:39 PM

50. Regardless discouraging or just not participating we can't measure the want by participation

.... Hell in that case Oklahoma doesn't want anything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 04:24 PM

52. Okay, fine, then tell me....


What did the result say about Puerto Ricans who want independence?

They shouldn't even have an option on the ballot, because this discussion is sure as hell not about measuring what any of those Puerto Ricans want.

Fortunately, we know what's good for 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:10 AM

6. My guess is that due to their latest economic struggles..

their population would be much more willing to join the "Union" due to severe storm damage and the resulting economic collapse.

PR needs help and has needed it for the past 10 years.

Need usually eclipses desire.

When I wrote this OP, i held that thought in the back of my mind. Do PR citizens actually want statehood?

Today, I'm guessing a hell yes on that question. Decades ago, I'd question that belief. But today, it's a whole new ballgame.

PR is struggling as a territory. Statehood could change that for the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imallin4Joe (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:14 AM

8. It's their call

No need to guess, fund a full, fair referendum and honor the results whatever they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imallin4Joe (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:49 AM

12. Yes, eliminate the favorable tax treatment too

One form which aid to Puerto Rico takes is a number of tax advantages relative to persons and companies in the states.

I agree with you that Puerto Rico has not been paying it’s fair share in federal revenue, and that statehood will be one way to start getting them to pay.

Your notion that PR would benefit financially does not seem to take in the larger picture.

Puerto Rico residents do not pay federal income tax, except for certain narrow categories (non-PR income, federal employees, etc.).

Statehood will involve taking money from them in a way that is not done now, and which you seem to leave out.

On top of that, it would balance DC by providing a state with a solid conservative anti-abortion voting bloc and higher than average military participation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 11:39 AM

16. given the income levels

how many people do you think are going to be paying FIT?
Furthermore, how many do you think would benefit from the EITC and other tax subsidies for low income taxpayers?
Third, how much more money might they get as a state that they don't get now?

It's a lot more mixed on that front than you are making it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 11:46 AM

17. The income levels?


Puerto Rico runs a program specifically designed to attract wealthy US citizens to establish residence there.

Just who do you think lives in the luxury towers and villas all over the main island and Vieques?

The stereotyping about Puerto Rico on this site is really something else.

Median income in PR runs a little lower than in mainland US, and is comparable to Alabama, but the variance is more typical of wealth distribution in comparable Latin and Caribbean economies.

You are going to run into a heck of a lot more very wealthy people in San Juan than you are in say, Birmingham.

But because PR is not a state, there are a multitude of tax breaks and carve-outs that simply don't exist elsewhere in the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imallin4Joe (Original post)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:16 AM

9. Agree

The Republicans are....well pure awfulness and super hypocritical.

Did we need a North and South Dakota? That was a Conservative power grab.

Both DC and Puerto Rico Need Statehood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 11:00 AM

14. WELL

let's hope the people of texas not decide to split their state 5 way if we bring in population as a factor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catsudon (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 11:51 AM

18. The people of Texas have no right to do that


The notion that Texas can, on its own volition, subdivide into multiple states is a falsehood.

It is popular among those who likewise believe that Texas has the right to secede.

Article IV, Section 3:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 12:04 PM

22. You are wrong.

Congress pre-approved the right of Texas to split up into as many as 5 states in 1845 when it was admitted to the U.S. It was part of the anti-slavery/pro-slavery compromises of that period but still exists.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/more-150-years-texas-has-had-power-secede-itself-180962354/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 12:07 PM

25. Remarkably, the Smithsonian Magazine is not the US Constitution


And, I realize some in the south may have missed it, but there were further conditions when Texas was re-admitted to the Union. History did move on from 1845.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 12:13 PM

26. Remarkably, the Smithsonian Magazine has more credibility than an anonymous internet poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 01:36 PM

29. Yes it does, but I would imagine that the Supreme Court would have to rule

on the constitutionality of the right to become 5 states due to a congressional resolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marie999 (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:26 PM

39. No doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:14 PM

34. The US Constitution Expressly Requires "consent of Congress"

There is no treaty, statute, or regulation, which can negate an express requirement of the Constitution.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-great-divide/

Although the provisions of the Texas Annexation document allowing for the creation of four additional states are popularly regarded as a unique curiosity today, they were largely superfluous. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution already specifically provided for the formation of new states through the junction or division of existing states:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


While some may have considered the loss of such things as the right to own slaves or to secede from the union to have been unfortunate results of the readmission of Texas to the Union, one does not usually find them voting Democratic since the 1960's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:25 PM

38. They gave their consent in 1845.

It has never been revoked. Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:36 PM

40. That is a ridiculous argument

Any particular division would require the consent of Congress to that particular proposal.

There is no blanket consent given to Texas in relation to any particular proposal to form a state.

That is simply one of those things that is taught in slave state schools which simply would not work in real life.

Texas also argued, for the same reason, that it had the right to secede.

They lost more than the bonds at issue in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869). If you know how to look up court cases, then I would suggest you take a look at that 1869 Supreme Court ruling.


"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."


And, in addition to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision also has more weight than a Smithsonian article.

You can ad hominem all you want, but perhaps you might quote some legal authority beyond a popular magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 03:59 PM

51. Maybe you should argue the point.

Not another issue. That SC decision refers to Texas succeeding from the U.S. That they can't do without permission from Congress. The issue here is something completely different. Texas forming 5 states WITHIN the U.S. not OUTSIDE of the U.S. They do have permission to do this. Next you will tell me the Smithsonian is a right wing rag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:00 PM

32. That is not the history behind the Dakota territory becoming two states.

Not at all. But it fits your narrative, so carry on, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imallin4Joe (Original post)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:27 AM

10. Correct: People of PR do NOT have a consensus for statehood. STILL.

Yes, a small majority of those who voted last fall voted yes, but turnout was low with statehood partisans overrepresented.

This'd be the SIXTH referendum on statehood.
* The 1967 referendum rejected statehood.
* 2017's non-binding 2017 referendum was in favor of statehood, but had only a 23% turnout, with statehood partisans over-represented in that 23%.
* FOUR other referendums didn't produce clear majorities for statehood, like 2020's.
* Many Puerto Ricans do NOT want it, some very strongly opposed. Including those who support PR's very long independence movement since colonial days and still very much alive in spite of repression.

Respect for democracy and for the will of the people of Puerto Rico is in order.

For those who insist mainlanders should somehow impose statehood on people who don't choose it for themselves, what the hell? You're watching trumpists determined to impose a new RW authoritarian government on our whole nation. How's the contempt for what others want so different? And of course the real driver behind it is not caring about what PR wants but imagining that it would grow the mainland's left wing power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 12:55 PM

28. PR should hold an election

to decide on statehood or independence. One or the other. This "territory" bullshit is colonialism at its worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elessar Zappa (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:07 PM

33. Tell them that. Again. It's not a frivolous moment of attention

in Puerto Rico but a very old, fractious and potentially disastrous issue.

The house just voted on one bill to make PR a state.

There's another bill in congress to set up a "convention where representatives elected by Puerto Ricans would study an array of options for the island—which, aside from statehood, include independence or some form of association that would leave Puerto Rico with more autonomy—and put vetted proposals to a binding vote. “The key is that this framework would be developed by Puerto Ricans and for Puerto Ricans, not dictated to them like so many previous policies,”..."

Factions in PR are all over the place, and some very passionate. Some really don't like the U.S. and resent the hell out of being dependent for PR's survival on a nation across a 1000 miles of water. My DIL lived there for years and wants to take our son to live there again someday, and I do want it prosperous and stable if that happens. But I believe more than a 1-vote majority should be required to impose statehood on the entire population. A substantial majority of Puerto Ricans should prove to the rest, and to us, that they want it. We have something like relative stability now and need to be careful we don't trade it for fighting a PR Liberation Front.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imallin4Joe (Original post)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 11:53 AM

20. Will be schooled but any us Dems calling for it can't be accused of stacking the deck

because I don't think PR is reliably Dem. If my impression is wrong I'll soon find out!1













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 12:04 PM

24. "I don't think PR is reliably Dem"

I believe you are correct.

People unfamiliar with Puerto Rico seem to have this odd notion that their politics will not be dominated by anti-abortion Catholics and Evangelical Christians if they are granted statehood.

There is every reason to believe that PR could become a reliable GOP stronghold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-aimed-modernize-its-old-civil-code-critics-say-n1229741

Puerto Rico aimed to modernize its old civil code. Critics say it set back women's and LGBTQ rights.

But the entire thinking here is dominated by "I think it will help our party" and not any genuine voices of Puerto Ricans.

It's colonialism in a liberal costume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:22 PM

37. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:46 PM

45. "are correct" - whew, first time that's happened, thanks!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imallin4Joe (Original post)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 01:55 PM

31. PR has to want statehood

which, at best, they seem ambivalent to. I would love to see PR get statehood provided the people there want it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:21 PM

36. Are they ready to pay US Income Taxes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:40 PM

41. they avoid income taxes but also don't get the benefits we do

there have been a number of referenda that have been pretty close in results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:41 PM

42. Apparently, they will do whatever people on an internet forum tell them they need to do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 03:15 PM

48. Small price to pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Imallin4Joe (Original post)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:20 PM

35. States aren't formed because of population.

We all know that, right?

Historically, communities have formed STATES to better represent their own specific and unique interests.

That's WHY W Virginia exists... and most all states, actually.

Ct was formed by people from Ma unhappy with Ma.

States are formed and created because SOMEONE sought out autonomy (or opportunity) FROM somewhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:42 PM

43. W VA exists due to rebellion of VA

had VA not rebelled no W VA no matter how upset those people were with VA proper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread