7 ms·

What’s great is all these exceptional, gritty people will put the work and expectations on everyone instead of simply moving to Idaho themselves.

lostmsu 5y ago
What if they are the majority?
- nscalf 5y ago
  Then they would probably be winning elections on the state level instead of trying to redefine what the state is.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    The person you were responding to in all likelihood meant majority of the rural / eastern part of the state not the entire state,
    - yesBoot 5y ago
      It does not matter. They have no power in our system to simply upend norms as they choose. They can pack up and move themselves if they don’t like it. The onus is not on everyone else to cater to them. It’s to abide laws as they are written within our constitutional system of elections and statutes overseeing them. I’m not saying that’s ideal. I’m saying that’s how it works. Down votes do nothing to make it any less true. If these folks would like to change that, I’m sure blue urban areas and states would love to renegotiate their wealth being extracted to fund rural communities. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700 https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the... Ironically, Idaho is a bigger grifter on Federal welfare than Oregon. So they want a more conservative way of life? Which appears to mean “more welfare for me”. If they dig into the history a bit they’d learn rural life was subsidized to begin with, with the government paying business to move out of urban areas. Using government to change the rules for all is not “little government”. Upending state borders out of spite is hardly a “conservative” solution. Their entire platform is laughable given the reality.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        If these people are such a drag, such a bunch of troublemakers and take in more taxes than they pay why shouldn't Oregon be showing them the door?
        yesBoot 5y ago
        Why should the rest of Oregon change to satisfy voters of a non-binding resolution? They can get a Uhaul and go. Why bother putting real costs on the state to appease people with freedom of agency already?
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        If the arrangement is mutually beneficial to Oregon, the "nobodies" and Idaho is on board then why not? Just to spite the nobodies?
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        Frankly you are just ranting about conservatives and not talking about topic at hand. It is completely irrelevant if conservatives are hypocrites and whatever else you are accusing them of being. If you believe in democratic institutions then people will sometimes vote for things you do not support. If Oregon and Idaho legislatures along with the US Congress also agree to this then it should happen. Nobody is saying that we should not follow the rules and have the legislatures and congress vote on this. Your accusation that they are not abiding by the Constitution is ridiculous and just an outright lie. This vote is just an indication of what they would like to see. So instead of ranting about off topic things why don't you actually make a real argument about why this should not happen. It is very clear you are not even trying to understand these people. You are not listening to them and are just being a jerk. It is people like you that cause these rural people to want to leave states filled with people who make libelous statements against them.
        yesBoot 5y ago
        I’m only ranting about conservatives as conservatives are the ones who brought this measure up. Why would I be ranting about liberals in this thread? Go away David. You’re now just ranting about me, someone you barely know. Pot. Kettle. Nice to meet you.
- yesBoot 5y ago
  Rule of law, not majority. It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide election laws insuring the “rule of law” bit.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    I don't think anybody is saying thid should happen without following the law so I am not sure what your point is?
    - yesBoot 5y ago
      The post I replied to was plainly written. If there’s nuance and context intended it should be communicated. There is no “rule of majority”. Questioning what should be if they’re simply a majority is just not allowed given our system.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I don’t see how it runs contrary to the rule of law. Im not aware of any legal obstructions that couldn’t be overcome, especially if everyone involved wanted it to succeed.
    - yesBoot 5y ago
      It’s not that the laws could not enable this, but none do. They have free agency. Why would the state reshape itself to satisfy people who are prisoners to their own psychosis alone?
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        What purpose does the state serve, if not to empower the people. If some regions want to join another state, why not enable them if it is not inherently hostile or damaging to others? Perhaps the rest of the state would be happy to see these people and the land they live on go. It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.

lostmsu 5y ago

What if they are the majority?

nscalf 5y ago
Then they would probably be winning elections on the state level instead of trying to redefine what the state is.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  The person you were responding to in all likelihood meant majority of the rural / eastern part of the state not the entire state,
  - yesBoot 5y ago
    It does not matter. They have no power in our system to simply upend norms as they choose. They can pack up and move themselves if they don’t like it. The onus is not on everyone else to cater to them. It’s to abide laws as they are written within our constitutional system of elections and statutes overseeing them. I’m not saying that’s ideal. I’m saying that’s how it works. Down votes do nothing to make it any less true. If these folks would like to change that, I’m sure blue urban areas and states would love to renegotiate their wealth being extracted to fund rural communities. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700 https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the... Ironically, Idaho is a bigger grifter on Federal welfare than Oregon. So they want a more conservative way of life? Which appears to mean “more welfare for me”. If they dig into the history a bit they’d learn rural life was subsidized to begin with, with the government paying business to move out of urban areas. Using government to change the rules for all is not “little government”. Upending state borders out of spite is hardly a “conservative” solution. Their entire platform is laughable given the reality.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      If these people are such a drag, such a bunch of troublemakers and take in more taxes than they pay why shouldn't Oregon be showing them the door?
      - yesBoot 5y ago
        Why should the rest of Oregon change to satisfy voters of a non-binding resolution? They can get a Uhaul and go. Why bother putting real costs on the state to appease people with freedom of agency already?
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        If the arrangement is mutually beneficial to Oregon, the "nobodies" and Idaho is on board then why not? Just to spite the nobodies?
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      Frankly you are just ranting about conservatives and not talking about topic at hand. It is completely irrelevant if conservatives are hypocrites and whatever else you are accusing them of being. If you believe in democratic institutions then people will sometimes vote for things you do not support. If Oregon and Idaho legislatures along with the US Congress also agree to this then it should happen. Nobody is saying that we should not follow the rules and have the legislatures and congress vote on this. Your accusation that they are not abiding by the Constitution is ridiculous and just an outright lie. This vote is just an indication of what they would like to see. So instead of ranting about off topic things why don't you actually make a real argument about why this should not happen. It is very clear you are not even trying to understand these people. You are not listening to them and are just being a jerk. It is people like you that cause these rural people to want to leave states filled with people who make libelous statements against them.
      - yesBoot 5y ago
        I’m only ranting about conservatives as conservatives are the ones who brought this measure up. Why would I be ranting about liberals in this thread? Go away David. You’re now just ranting about me, someone you barely know. Pot. Kettle. Nice to meet you.
yesBoot 5y ago
Rule of law, not majority. It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide election laws insuring the “rule of law” bit.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I don't think anybody is saying thid should happen without following the law so I am not sure what your point is?
  - yesBoot 5y ago
    The post I replied to was plainly written. If there’s nuance and context intended it should be communicated. There is no “rule of majority”. Questioning what should be if they’re simply a majority is just not allowed given our system.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I don’t see how it runs contrary to the rule of law. Im not aware of any legal obstructions that couldn’t be overcome, especially if everyone involved wanted it to succeed.
  - yesBoot 5y ago
    It’s not that the laws could not enable this, but none do. They have free agency. Why would the state reshape itself to satisfy people who are prisoners to their own psychosis alone?
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      What purpose does the state serve, if not to empower the people. If some regions want to join another state, why not enable them if it is not inherently hostile or damaging to others? Perhaps the rest of the state would be happy to see these people and the land they live on go. It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.