Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

upi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 673 posts

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#271

Post by buzzert »

joshka wrote: post #145
buzzert wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Try something else”, as in the complete polar opposite of what we were trying before? I cannot rationalize such a decision.

What would you do instead?

In my city (San Francisco), the Tenderloin is nationally famous for having an "open-air drug market", which means a place you can go to _buy_ drugs with impunity. It also happens to be one of the most dystopian parts of the city, rampent with crime, overdoses, unsanitary conditions, and needles everywhere.

It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. What I would do instead is precisely what I would do if my children were addicted to drugs; tough love. I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl.

Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#272

Post by everybodyknows »

iwasakabukiman wrote: post #182

This article title is grossly misleading. As far as I can tell from the article, no actual votes have happened. The group behind this is just pushing for counties to support them. These types of groups pop up all the time, make hay and then disappear.

The vote was taken Tuesday of this week:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/554332-oregon-count...

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#273

Post by AlotOfReading »

kirillzubovsky wrote: post #188
AlotOfReading wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you've lived in a lot of these places, but most of them are utterly dependent on those population centers to meet their basic medical, financial, and infrastructure needs. The cores in turn need resources from the peripheries to sustain themselves. There's no reason any of this has to be oppositional, except that the rural counties are pissed off about elections and lockdowns right now.

I don't quite agree with this view based on what I've seen/heard from small town folks. The narrative that rural counties depend on the centers for their infrastructure needs is a view that was created by the cities. In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient. They know help isn't coming their way, and therefore are totally okay doing what needs to be done to preserve their co…

Can you be more specific about where you've seen people in eastern Oregon and modoc/siskiyou living on local subsistence agriculture? These areas are mountainous, high altitude, and incredibly arid, not exactly prime agricultural land. That's a big part of why they're so lightly populated.

As for jobs, their main employers are typically some combination of tourism, ranching, and most of all, government. Often it's colleges and medical facilities that are the largest employers overall, which critically rely on state funding.

I've definitely heard people in these areas who say they don't need doctors, schools, or roads, but hopefully we can agree that it's a silly position and not an argument most people would make.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#276

Post by joshka »

troutwine wrote: post #247
joshka wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks - as a non-American living there, this is pretty helpful to further my understanding. I wonder whether there's any actual examples of the values being brought back from a point where they have disappeared.

> I wonder whether there's any actual examples of the values being brought back from a point where they have disappeared. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you asking about examples of people that have been de-radicalized?

To be clearer - given Jones asserts that the reversal of satanists/globalists is good, are there examples of where such a reversal has had positive measurable effects on a society? I'm looking to understand perspectives opposite to my own here (as an atheist, non-American, liberal leaning person).

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#277

Post by Smilliam »

whoooooo123 wrote: post #244
rsj_hn wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning plastic straws, asserting that men should compete against women in sports if they identify as women, and eliminating SAT scores doesn't seem like a science-driven approach, but more of a faith-based science-denialism.

Genuine question: what's wrong with banning plastic straws? Edit: I know that paper straws are a pain to drink through, my question was more: why is banning plastic straws an example of "faith-based science denialism"?

Hypothetical answer: A ban on plastic straws can unintentionally make life more difficult for individuals with motor disabilities.

Paper straws break down relatively quickly and can lose suction effectiveness as a result. Reusable metal straws can cause chipped teeth or gum damage if bitten down on by someone with poor fine motor control. No straws at all can leave an individual unable to ingest liquids entirely. Reusable soft plastic straws would be ideal, but the tradeoff is that now we've placed yet an extra burden on an impaired person (or their caretakers) in our society because now they'll need to maintain a supply of clean, reusable straws that they need to transport with them. Disposable plastic straws are "soft" enough to not damage someone's teeth or gums too severely when bitten down on, but are more durable than paper straws to ensure reliable suction over time, and they do not require any upkeep or maintenance for proper hygiene due to their disposable nature.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#278

Post by yesBoot »

lostmsu wrote: post #230
yesBoot wrote: post #146

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

What if they are the majority?

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.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#279

Post by noodlesUK »

BobbyJo wrote: post #246
jfrunyon wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... You're right, you don't say it would save the government money. You make the argument that it would save everyone money. No one has any incentive to care abo…

>No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. >Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. >And the consumers simply have no choice. That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of car…

> That’s only true in emergency medicine

What would you do about emergency medicine in your ideal world though?

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#280

Post by renewiltord »

smaryjerry wrote: post #120
dumbfoundded wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current racism in Oregon is certainly not something I want to understate but it's unfair to compare Oregon now to the deep South now. The whole of the United States was founded on slavery but a lot has changed. Not nearly as much as has changed in the South. For example, President Obama lost the national white vote 43% to 55% in 2008 (1). In 2008, more than 89% of the voters in Oregon were white and voted for Oba…

This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just so much wrong with that.

It doesn't assume anything. It registers evidence for one hypothesis over another. If the evidence doesn't move your priors at all, then you're not thinking rationally. Of course there are other factors as well (which perhaps dominate), the strictness of the Dem/Rep split, etc. but this one piece of evidence should move you in the direction described.
Post reply on HN