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

341–350 of 673 posts

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

#341

Post by lief79 »

hackyhacky wrote: post #219
CountDrewku wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI if they starve to death there's no one to plant or harvest the food. Also, if your argument is that the subsidies are unnecessary that would indicate that farming is profitable and they would in fact not starve to death. The point you're trying to make kinda collapsed on itself bud.

Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. 1. In this hypothetical situation, the cheaper food comes from abroad, now that there are no import tariffs. 2. I never said subsidies aren't necessary: I don't know how you can infer that point from what I wrote. I said that subsidies exist to protect American farmers, so American farmers should stop complaining about those who fund them. American farming is as profita…

Have you considered just how much of the international surplus the US produces, and how much of the total production it currently consumes?

I suspect running the numbers would indicate a clear international need for the US breadbasket, and not a decrease in overall cost due to a large drop in supply.

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

#342

Post by jspaetzel »

kingsuper20 wrote: post #97

I do have to wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to just move state functions, as many as are practical, to the county level. Counties are perfectly capable of being 100% in charge of their own schools, roads, police. They largely are, but subject to a great deal of probably unnecessary state control.

Welcome to the Libertarian party.

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

#343

Post by SllX »

dawnerd wrote: post #250
orik wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were votes, two more counties will hold a vote at a later date. https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=139 https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=124 https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=141 https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=248 https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=242

Still misleading, they voted to look into it. It's a HUGE waste of money since it wont go anywhere in congress.

If they’re not creating a new State but joining an existing one, it just might. Depends on how this plays out in Oregon and Idaho too, but it won’t affect the Senate.

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

#344

Post by jspaetzel »

jfengel wrote: post #110
kingsuper20 wrote: post #97

I do have to wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to just move state functions, as many as are practical, to the county level. Counties are perfectly capable of being 100% in charge of their own schools, roads, police. They largely are, but subject to a great deal of probably unnecessary state control.

That sounds to me like it would create a ton of redundancy, as different organizations reimplement nearly-identical policies. And then it creates a ton of uncertainty. A different thread was already complaining about the uncertainty of whether children can inherit debts from their parents, which varies from state to state. Is it really a boon to have it vary county by county? "Simpler" would generally be to centraliz…

Tons of redundancy also creates tons of room for fresh ideas, this basically applies the ideas of capitalism to government.

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

#345

Post by joshka »

buzzert wrote: post #271
joshka wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Tender…

> It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin.

There seems to be a correlation vs causation issue there though. An equally plausible rational explanation is that the criminal act of selling drugs tends to make more sense in a place where that act is overlooked. If drug sales were decriminalized then those areas would tend to be less focused. Case in point is the proliferation of legal marijuana dispensaries. At least in the places that I've seen these (in Seattle), they don't seem to induce a higher criminal / unsanitary / dystopian atmosphere. Perhaps my perspective is unique.

>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.

Yes, and Singapore's approach still regards possession / use as a medical with an initial focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Singapore has some pretty big advantages over the US in its administration of the law (single jurisdiction / set of laws, single highly populous city). The laws vary widely in the US (consider Marijuana legalization an obvious example).

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

#346

Post by AndrewBissell »

mjevans wrote: post #35

Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a lack of understanding in how the government of the people serves the people. More precisely how taxes and math work. The GAO and similar offices should do a better job of preparing reports on where every collected tax dollar is being spent; both in the physica…

I think Covid is driving a great deal of this division now. People in rural Oregon see red states like Idaho almost entirely back to normal, without the promised piles of dead bodies in the streets, and feel like they could have that for themselves if not for Governor Kate Brown and the state's ridiculous protocols and mandates, which even include masking for outdoor youth sports.

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

#347

Post by anonAndOn »

GongOfFour wrote: post #88
mjevans wrote: post #35

Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a lack of understanding in how the government of the people serves the people. More precisely how taxes and math work. The GAO and similar offices should do a better job of preparing reports on where every collected tax dollar is being spent; both in the physica…

Here is the website for one of the groups pushing for this: https://www.greateridaho.org/ Taxes are just one part of this. They list these other issues of concern: > 1. American Values: Oregon will continue to violate more and more American values and American freedoms because normal rural Americans are outnumbered in Oregon. Not in Idaho. Addicts will be attracted to Oregon from all over the world by the 2020 drug d…

>violate more and more American values and American freedoms

If they were really a proponent of freedom then they would support the freedom of adults to smoke/injest/snort/inject anything they want. "Addicts will be attracted to Oregon..." precisely because of that freedom.

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

#348

Post by dumbfoundded »

generalizations wrote: post #312
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…

> The whole of the United States was founded on slavery Citation needed. I'll be curious how you show that each state was "founded on" slavery, and how that was true from the inception of each of those states.

Slavery was the chief issue preventing the colonies from creating a united government. At first, the Articles of Confederation created a shell of a government that quickly fell apart leading to the constitutional convention and the creation of the US Government as we know it today. At the time, slavery was the most contested issue when writing the current constitution.

It's important to recognize almost all of the economic power of the US came from slave labor exports like tobacco. That's why we have so many Virginians as founding fathers and why the capital was put in Virginia. The compromise that led to the Southern Colonies accepting the US constitution is famously known as the 3/5 compromise. This compromise heavily impacted US politics for decades as new states had to be evenly added to maintain the balance between slave holding states and non-slave holding states. When this balance fell apart, the civil war started.

The issue of slavery weighed heavily in the creation of the US from political, economic, and cultural perspectives for decades. Slavery formed the economic basis of the early United States and 250 years later, we're still feeling its impact.

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

#349

Post by nobodyandproud »

jfrunyon wrote: post #218
BobbyJo wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My personal believe is presently, for lack of data that I can digest, that the far right is probably focused around emotions 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, because, in their opinion, the gover…

> 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…

> 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 ...

Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms.

It also separates health cost, whose administration is expensive for businesses, from working capabilities of employees. It’s a major problem for small companies.

Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.

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

#350

Post by techsupporter »

Smilliam wrote: post #277
whoooooo123 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Reu…

I'm not sure if I can do this topic justice solely over text, but I'm going to try because I genuinely think it's important to address, and with the plea that I'm truly not trying to be a horse's ass here and disparage people who have different needs. If anything, I think people who have different needs are the ones being taken advantage of, both coming and going.

This quote really stood out to me:

> and they [disposable plastic straws] do not require any upkeep or maintenance for proper hygiene due to their disposable nature.

It's a rather bright example of the problem our global society has put itself into: there's still a need to deal with these items, but that need is no longer on the person using the item; it has been outsourced to the rubbish bin and, thus, to society and the environment at large.

We've done this to ourselves in myriad ways. Expanding public transport is "unfair" to people who have different needs because perhaps some people cannot quickly or easily board transit vehicles, or those trips do not go to the front door of where some people need to go. We cannot eliminate or shrink parking requirements or availability for the same reason.

Politically, we stop at "well, can't do that" without considering "OK, how could we do almost all of that with modifications for people who have other needs?"

We've fallen into the perfect must be the only outcome otherwise why bother. Some of that is genuinely not knowing, but large parts of opposition to the changes we know we need to make--both individually and on the companies and businesses supplying us in environmentally-poor ways--are disingenuously hiding behind those arguments simply to obstruct.

That's frustrating.

Post reply on HN