Fuck votes. Let them buy their way out. Once a fair value for the property, infrastructure, and future revenue is determined that value becomes the baseline for negotiations and the auction can begin. Oregon loses some freeloaders, gains a windfall, and becomes even more blue.
Fuck Idaho. How about instead we go back to Washington Territorial borders and have the Evergreen State annex their whole crooked potato patch. They can have statehood back when they learn to behave themselves.
I’m sure it won’t happen, but there’s a part of me that would just love to hear that when the negotiations get to Idaho, Idaho is just like “Nah, hard pass, we don’t want you either.”
The more crazed element of the Oregon left are so damn detacted from reality that this won’t even ring alarm bells. Every left swing has a counter swing. Time to stop being divisive and look for common ground.
Yes yes yes! I want nothing more than to see idaho and oregon leave - goodbye, thanks for nothing, I hope you all die of syphyllis from inbreeding - and good riddance. PLEASE GIVE US THIS CIVIL WAR ALREADY! The good people on the left front are not afraid of civil war, or of states seceding -- it's what I have prayed and prayed for and I'm ready. I'm ready, and I hope everyone on this site is ready for it also, and it's time we did this thing.
I do like the idea of making Idaho more symmetrical.
Doesn’t seem like this would have much of an impact federally, it’s not like trying to form a new state where you’d get new Senators who agree with you. These people probably agree with Idaho Senators and not Oregon but their move wouldn’t change the composition.
At this rate, please give us a civil war already. We need to fight these fuckers and let's see how many of them chickenshit their way through battle since they're all words and cosplaying.
There are natural resources out there that the land owners want to extract. Washington’s and Oregon’s environmental law is far more stringent than Idaho’s.
I can really sympathize with these guys. I live in a blue dot in one of the reddest states in the country. I have been talking with my friends about doing this exact thing.
Technically this is not secession. It’s partitioning. They want to partition themselves and join Idaho. Just like I’d love to partition my city away from the shit hole parasitic state it’s attached to.
The state level representation just isn’t there for them. They’re so dramatically in the minority that they have no voice in state government at all. So changes are mandated to them, and they’re disillusioned. They love their home and they want the government to recognize them.
Set aside the crazy bullshit they want. The grievance is legitimate, the government completely ignores their desires, they haven’t been able to get the government to acknowledge that, and so they retaliate by saying they don’t want to be a part of it anymore.
To be clear, there is no resolution for people in this situation. They have no control over the state government, no ability to change it. The only choice is to leave, and faced with moving or a long shot at leaving or taking your home with you, you’d choose to take your home, every time.
Though it is only 53% of them that want this. Not that I think that should cancel the entire vote, but it should complicate the situation because a 6% difference shouldn’t change the situation into one that 47% don’t want.
This is caused by Gerrymandering and antidemocratic voter suppression. But Republicans don’t want to fix those issues because they’d be a regional party overnight limited to just the south.
I do think there needs to be a dissolution of the parties, but accusing both sides of being the same is not valid nor useful in the state (lol, country?) that we currently live in.
I’m not saying both sides are the same. I’m accusing two different political parties of employing the same shitty tactics, which they most definitely are.
Is one party more guilty of it? Sure. But denying that the Democrats are gerrymandering is delusional.
Oregon’s 2021 congressional map received an F from the gerrymandering project for giving one party a significant advantage.
There are several available at the link I shared. It might be more than one click but, because you’re presumably able to read, a big smart guy like you should have no trouble finding them.
I also couldn’t find a better map on that link. The state itself is strikingly partisan, and I can’t imagine a map that wouldn’t reflect that. That could just be my lack of imagination though.
All governments are run by politicians, by definition. Are you in favor of an anarchist power vacuum that will instantly attract people wanting to set up their own terrible governments?
What do they want that Idaho can provide that Oregon can’t? Some people have to flee entire states over abortion laws for lifesaving medical procedures and they’re told stuff like “well if you don’t like it just move”.
The ability to be more open about being white supremacist garbage. Idaho is a dumpster fire - the state is suffering shortages of medical professionals because of the GQP.
I appreciate that. And this is a great example to whip out when those idiots say shit like that. Obviously moving isn’t an option for most people and for those whom it is, they likely have.
What exactly they want isn’t important, just that it’s very much the opposite of how the state is being run. Admittedly some of the demands fall under crazy bullshit, but the central issue is agency. Politically speaking they have very little, and this is the one lever left to them to pull.
Imagine you’re on a train of trolleys, and every time it comes to a point where a direction could be chosen, every car votes and consistently the ones at the back are out voted by the other cars. You can’t get off and buy another ticket. But you might be able to detach the cars.
Furthermore, reorganization like this should be done far more frequently than it’s being done. Why shouldn’t we allow disparate peoples of similar opinions vote together and govern each other? Why are we locked in to the lines on a map, the last major change of which happened in 1867. Since then, the borders have remained relatively unchanged.
Not only should they, a group of people I likely hold only one fundamental belief in common with, not be afforded some self governance?
Imagine you’re on a train of trolleys, and every time it comes to a point where a direction could be chosen, every car votes and consistently the ones at the back are out voted by the other cars. You can’t get off and buy another ticket. But you might be able to detach the cars.
So, you’re describing the 47% who do not want to partition?
This is why proportional voting is good. The best answer is to give them more accurate representation as part of oregon.
Without some trade for like a blue part of idaho this trade just stacks the deck one way. not 100% of the people in those districts want to leave and there’s blue parts of idaho, why not trade those for red parts of oregon if it’s “just partitioning” why abandon the 20-49% of whomever is in those red districts that would go straight back to being unrepresented
No, this is just right wingers wanting things 100% their way with no reasonable offer on the the table. There’s no “legitimacy” here.
The grievance is legitimate, the government completely ignores their desires…
I see your point, but their “desires” are to oppress or kill the normal people, so I just don’t see their grievances as legitimate. Conservatives are furious that they are unable to use legislation to further their conservative values of racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, transphobia, antisemitism and other conservative bigotry. There is simply no room in a modern culture for hate-based ideologies like conservatism.
We should not legitimize their harmful desires by recognizing their “grievances”. Instead, we should marginalize hate by marginalizing the haters.
These people want to abandon everything that makes their lives great for… (checks notes) The rights to control women, marry children, and to burn crosses on their ethnic neighbors lawn.
Mostly (and this is probably true for over 60% of Republicans), it’s about defunding half of the government programs they rely on but don’t realize it, sold to them through the euphemism of “tax cuts”.
I think the right to control women is next on the list, but even then we see that even republican public opinion on abortions is stricter than the left’s, but would actually prefer less extreme laws than what has been passed.
As much of a meme as it is, most rural religious folk aren’t militant about marrying children and burning crosses. We hear about every instance of child marriage cause it sucks so much, and people have been openly, violently racist despite the law for centuries, all it takes is a town full of like-minded people.
This is so damn odd, it’s a state. Just move. It’s not another country. Shit like this is what makes me think we should just abolish the states honestly. This mindset is weird
Considering that it’s just some imaginary line in the dirt that a bunch of people agree on the location of, yeah it’s a lot more rational than everything you go through to physically move
The concept of “Idaho” is an entirely societally defined concept. If everyone agrees you are in Idaho, then you are in Idaho. If all you care about is being in Idaho, and you can do that with less effort and resources than physically moving across state lines, why wouldn’t you do that?
I think it’s a pretty short sighted and selfish thing to do, but it is entirely rational.
If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, you can’t afford to move. You can’t afford the moving van, you certainly can’t afford a week or two without work, and you can’t afford to go to job interviews in the place where you want to live.
But if you don’t have to move, and instead you work with people around you to change the current geopolitical structure, that’s something that you can help be a part of by signing a petition or driving down to your town hall it’s a month for a meeting.
I agree with you that overall it would make sense for people to move, but logistically many of them can’t. And even if they could, maybe they like the place they live. Maybe they’re lucky enough to own property, and the problem they have is not with their neighborhood, so they’d rather not replace it.
Just move is a perfectly legitimate idea when the only reason you want to move is because a political ideology. Not even political ideology wanting to impose your political ideology. If this was an economic issue I would never say just move. If this was a persecution issue I would never say just move. If this was any legitimate issue I would never say just move. However this is obviously, pathetically obviously, none of those things. They don’t like the people around them. They’re bigots. Bigots should move.
Frankly I think it’s absurd that you’re even suggesting that they have some kind of legitimate gripe. Equating their issue to anything legitimate is beyond ignorant.
Seems like a stupid vote then: choose to leave a state with at least some services to join one without, just to make it easier for a few landowners to extract resources without regard to the environment
The cost of living is cheaper in Idaho! They’d just be giving up things like 1/3 the per student spending, physicians leaving to avoid idaho’s abortion laws, and face lower road spending, worse unemployment rights… I mean the benefits are right there. For the rest of us in Oregon. Sign here, press hard, 3 copies. Finally we can get rid of those walkout issues in the house.
Oregexit your hearts out. Don’t let the non gendered bathroom handle hit you on the ass as you go.
The United States formed as a group of semi-sovereign political entities that wanted to make their own laws, but needed a common defense, foreign, and trade policy to prevent recolonization.
The founding fathers knew that the country wouldn’t agree on everything, so they set up a system where a lot of decisions would be made by more local officials.
Other federations work on the same principle. It is a lot easier to get political consensus in a smaller group than a larger one, so a lot of decisions are pushed to more local entities.
Lemmy works because you can create new instances and communities and change federation rules and move around between them completely uninhibited. In the real world, the overwhelming majority of people are stuck where they are with whatever government was there before they were born.
It’s not a country and never has been, it’s a union of states.
“State” in general terms usually refers to an entire country, notice the term “state department”
Nation States. At it’s core the federal government was meant to be basically like the EU, each member retaining autonomy but joining the union and agreeing to abide by its rules in order to gain access to collective benefits.
The reality of the situation is that this “country” was formed as a business proposition and that’s all it’s ever been. America is a business not a nation of people, the rest is pure propaganda.
ktvz.com
Hot