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

491–500 of 673 posts

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

#491

Post by cratermoon »

iammisc wrote: post #417
_qwfv wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so say that. Or connect them to "American Values" concretely somehow. Because right now they are just saying their opponents are "un-American" which means whatever it needs to mean without actually saying anything of substance.

> Ok, so say that. Or connect them to "American Values" concretely somehow. The 1st amendment granting freedom to assemble? Free exercise of religion? The supreme court agreed when it struck down New York's and California's bans on religious gatherings, which also affected Oregon. So broadly speaking, these are correct by the highest authority on 'American'. Perhaps this doesn't come to mind when you hear 'American v…

1. The first amendment gives "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's not the right of people to gather together wherever they want, whenever they want. Note the dependent clause. It's saying the people can join organizations like the CPUSA, People For the American Way, American Family Association, or even movements like BLM or antifa, and the government is not permitted to constrain that.

2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means the government can't say which religions are OK and which aren't, or that there's an official religion of the US. It says nothing about people being able to go to church on Sunday or temples on Saturday

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

#492

Post by legitster »

I think it's interesting that the actual proposal is RIFE with some really, really bad analysis: https://www.greateridaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Grea...

The best example is how they treat averages: As part of their "win-win" scenario: the new average income for the state of Oregon would rise. As if individuals would actually directly benefit from the average arbitrarily going up.

Inversely, one of the benefits of joining Idaho is the lower cost of living vs Oregon, disproportionally averaging the PDX metro area as their own cost of living.

However, the whole thing is chock full of the assumption that everyone would be happier and better off if elections were less competitive. It's such a weird document in that the group is effectively arguing to gerrymander themselves into a less electorally relevant position.

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

#493

Post by csomar »

mattste wrote: post #422
catgary wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would Oregon necessarily be against this? This seems like a great way to (a) get rid of nut jobs from the state legislature, and (b) get rid of a bunch of counties that sinkholes (financially speaking).

Considering that the impacted region has a lot of forestry, there are environmental concerns with how they will protect the land in their new state's regulatory system.

Most of these forests are owned by the federal government. Oregon owns less than half of its land.

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

#494

Post by potta_coffee »

chrononaut wrote: post #391
rhacker wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own land in a rural area (house coming in maybe a year) and I have spoken to the neighbors. For the most part it's little things actually. Rules that the major cities deal with, like not being allowed to put up a specific kind of fence because the bureaucrats in the city look at .1 acre plots of land and don't like how certain fences look - where out here we're dealing with 5 to 100 acres (and in some cases a 40000…

> Rules that the major cities deal with, like not being allowed to put up a specific kind of fence because the bureaucrats in the city look at .1 acre plots of land and don't like how certain fences look - where out here we're dealing with 5 to 100 acres (and in some cases a 40000 acres of land). Wait, these rules aren't something that are enacted and enforced at an individual city / town level? These are state-wide…

Out here, those rules are enforced at the county level if there's no city nearby. Counties can be massive and include lots of out of the way land.

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

#495

Post by throwaway0a5e »

yesBoot wrote: post #371
_-david-_ wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you were responding to in all likelihood meant majority of the rural / eastern part of the state not the entire state,

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…

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?

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

#496

Post by cronix »

bobthepanda wrote: post #469
tppiotrowski wrote: post #467

Grant voted 1,471 to 895 for county officials “to meet and discuss relocating Idaho border.” Lake voted 1,341 to 463 for the “relocation of Idaho border” to be taken up in “county board of commissioners meetings.” Malheur voted 3,050 to 2,572 for “county court meetings regarding relocation of Oregon-Idaho border.” Sherman voted 429 to 260 in favor of “promoting moving Oregon-Idaho border.” Baker voted 3,064 to 2,307…

There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them.

I've read that they are interested. It would extend Idaho to the Pacific Ocean and give them a seaport in Coos Bay, if certain adjoining counties in the proposal join.

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

#497

Post by hackyhacky »

iammisc wrote: post #475
hackyhacky wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of Christian ministries are actually providing these services? You don't say, just that some are. I would say that this is far from widespread phenomenon. Are Christian ministries actually providing comprehensive healthcare, or only those procedures that they morally approve of? If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty, more untreated diabetes, and worse healthcare in c…

Needlessly combative comment, but I'll bite I guess. As to what percent, I can't give it to you. How do you quantify how much your friend likes you. A lot of this support is not organized, like the meal train I mentioned for my wife and I after our first kid. WRT 'comprehensive' healthcare, many conservative people would find those procedures offensive and unnecessary. > If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians,…

1. If you're going to argue that argue that religious-provided healthcare is superior to secular, you're going to have to do better than "well, who can say." You've given some anecdata, with nothing to back it up.

2. I'm aware that conservative people consider certain procedure unnecessary. My point is that religious-based moral outrage has no place in deciding the proper standard of care. Your approach means that when your morals contradict another person's health, you get to choose what kind of services they get. That's a great reason to divorce healthcare from religious influence.

3. Being poor sounds great! Makes me wonder why more people don't move to the south and live in the socialist utopia that you describe, where everyone has all their needs fulfilled with no effort.

4. If death is just the beginning, maybe we should abolish healthcare entirely, and just get to the good part sooner. Instead of wasting money on MRI machines, heart surgery, and diabetes medication, we should instead wisely invest in elaborate mausoleum, like the pharaohs of old. This also conveniently explains why religious conservatives, although ostensibly caring about their fellow man, consistently vote against any expansion of state-provided healthcare, which is selfishly rooted in the notion of keeping people out of heaven.

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

#498

Post by sellyme »

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 unaware of any jurisdiction in which plastic straws are banned that does not explicitly make exceptions for those with disabilities.

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

#499

Post by newacct583 »

adventured wrote: post #451
URSpider94 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see the data, but from the data I have seen, the data conflict with the popular (populist) narrative. A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves. In reality, the money almost always flows in the other direction; taxpayers in cities are subsidizing the rural-dwellers. This has noth…

> A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves. By far the most heavily subsidized, most expensive, poorest and least educated people in the United States are the poor living in urban zones. It's not even remotely a close comparison in terms of numbers. You can see it in the crime statistics, you c…

> violent criminals [...] which urban zones produce radically more of

That's just not true. A quick google pulls up this visualization from 2017: https://www.santarosa-lawyer.com/united-states-crime-map-201...

And you'll note that... there's basically no correlation with urbanity at all. Highly urban states like CT are very peaceful, but so is Idaho (but not Montana, which is pretty bad). Two of the worst states are NM and Alaska, which have near zero urban population!

There may be some rules to glean from the data, but the one you picked is not it.

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

#500

Post by PeterisP »

ralusek wrote: post #476
catgary wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would Oregon necessarily be against this? This seems like a great way to (a) get rid of nut jobs from the state legislature, and (b) get rid of a bunch of counties that sinkholes (financially speaking).

You are of the opinion that the "nut jobs" in Oregon are not currently residing in Portland, attempting to burn down federal courthouses for hundreds of days at a time?

The [to-be-]seceding counties are strongly in opposition to the currently governing policies in Oregon, so it's quite expected that they (i.e. Oregon government and the petitioners) perceive each other as "nut jobs".
Post reply on HN