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

561–570 of 673 posts

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

#561

Post by ModernMech »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #553
ModernMech wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just thought it brought an unnecessary and questionable dichotomy to the discussion. For example, I support gun rights and own many guns. My libertarian and conservative friends support drug decriminalization. The other poster brought up an "either-or, both-sides" framing into what seemed to otherwise be a productive discussion. There was no mention of "parties" or "sides". I have no idea what "side" anyone else be…

> I have no idea what "side" anyone else belongs to, and I don't see why it matters. You're missing the point entirely. Drugs aren't an isolated example. There are a number of highly divisive issues in the US for which the majority of Americans appear to hold largely emotionally based views. (Note that the degree to which a view is emotional is entirely orthogonal to whether or not it can be arrived at rationally.) >…

I'm sorry, I thought I was engaging in a conversation with specific people about a specific topic (drug decriminalization). I didn't realize I was engaging in a nebulous discussion ranging to what liberals feel about guns. I don't have anything to say about that topic at the moment. Apologies.

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

#562

Post by s0rce »

kbenson wrote: post #442
ghaff wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that basically says that essentially no one in the state of MA is rural and that almost no one in the state of CA is rural. Which probably doesn't correspond to how average people think about rural vs. urban. So the fact that I can look off my back deck and see nothing but trees is a reasonable urban environment.

> and that almost no one in the state of CA is rural Kinda crazy to see the entire I-5 length between San Francisco and Los Angeles classified as "metro". Perhaps the metric they're using doesn't work so well when counties (which is what they classify) are so large, and they primarily care that some city of over 50k people exists in it "somewhere". Some of those counties appear to be as large as or larger than some o…

Huge parts of the California desert are also classified as urban as the counties are so large, some of those places are extremely remote. Even the western central valley, other than i5 cutting through it is remote and sparsely inhabited.

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

#563

Post by BobbyJo »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #349
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…

> 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 empl…

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

Do you have data showing that the gains in competitiveness offset productivity losses from higher unemployment?

>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.

What is the difference between essential and not essential? I don't think there's a good objective basis for what is and isn't, it just comes down to the costs healthy people are willing to bear, which comes down to feelings again.

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

#564

Post by legitster »

nverno wrote: post #542
zepto wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like in Russia or China?

How about just like an Eisenhower or Kennedy or Mandela? Competition isn't a good sign in politics, it just means people havent reached a good consensus.

The difference with Eisenhower and Kennedy is that they were elected in eras when people were much more likely to switch their votes between parties - on average elections we were much more competitive.

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

#565

Post by joshka »

iammisc wrote: post #445
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. In reality, the money almost always flows in the other direction; taxpayers in cities are subsidizing the rural-dwellers. This has nothing to do with work ethic, it's just a hard fact that a lot of costs scale with square miles instead of with people…

How does this viewpoint square up with the partisan divide over $15 minimum wage?

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

#566

Post by yesBoot »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #547
yesBoot wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

The state has an obligation to the people. Not some people who don’t like the state anymore.

I’d feel this way if it was left leaning folks who want the liberal regions to join California.

It’s not about “these people” at all for me except that these people happen to be the ones we’re talking about.

I’d appreciate it if an armchair shrink not diagnose me without knowing me.

It’s not the obligation of the state as a whole to kowtow to already free people who are feeling captured when it’s their own minds keeping them where they are.

This problem is already solved by the US Constitution which allows for them to move between state borders as they wish. It’s not on the whole of Oregon to satisfy them.

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

#568

Post by jcranmer »

samatman wrote: post #541
jameshart wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> values which are of long standing, still held by a significant fraction of the population, and them disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations, are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria So, in an Oregon context, this would mean the values of the Chinook peoples?

Not really, no. For starters, we're talking about Eastern Oregon, so if you wanted to throw a gotcha, you should have gone for the Paiute. America is a nation, and it took its time getting to Oregon. The Chinook were never particularly numerous, nor influential on the values of that nation. That's just a fact. The Iroquois League was more influential, the Founding Fathers were very impressed with their system of gove…

> The Western ethos of self-reliance and freedom owes a lot to them.

So the notion of "self-reliance and freedom" that makes Western ideologies suggests you're referring not to Native Americans but "pioneers"--the people who settled the Western lands without government help. Except, I guess, for the help it provided by clearing the land of its prior inhabitants who somehow didn't know the land wasn't theirs anymore. And providing basic infrastructure like schooling (funded from sales from Township 16). And funding the construction of railroads so that homesteaders could acquire the goods they couldn't make themselves and sell their excess produce to US markets.

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

#569

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #515
bobthepanda wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Could Idaho afford to incorporate that much more rural land without cities to increase its tax base? They purposely avoid even Bend because that’s where Oregon starts getting liberal.

[deleted]

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

#570

Post by yesBoot »

_-david-_ wrote: post #529
yesBoot wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN