Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[San Lumen]

Doesn’t answer the question.

Tell me how you’d divide the state based on this map?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Un ... n_New_York

You'd need to have a county by county referendum first. Presidential election voting records alone cannot decide which side a county might go on after all.
A few of those Biden counties went Trump the first time and a few of those Trump countries likely went Obama.

Or how about instead of overcomplicating things we don't divide up any any state or the country. I have relatives upstate and neither they no does anyone they know supports something as ludicrous as that.

This stunt won't go anywhere as the state government won;'t approve it.

[Punished UMN]

Then, again, not from any relevant democratic right. The state's right is transferred via inheritance.

Constitutions tend to also enshrine democratic rights so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Where I'm going with it is that, as I said last night, consent of the governed is a farce, the state derives its legitimacy from that it existed before anyone alive was ever born. There is no real democratic reason that democratic will should be limited only to those terms that were agreed upon by people who died around the turn of the 20th century. The power of the state is inherited from the prior existence of the state, the same as a monarchy, it's merely the way government is composed that is different. That the right of popular sovereignty is subservient to the right of the state to maintain the territory that it inherited is emblematic of this. Secession is not a right in international law because popular sovereignty is nonsense, the sovereignty of the state comes from precedent and from the central authority, not from the democratic will of the people.

[Lady Victory]

Constitutions tend to also enshrine democratic rights so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Where I'm going with it is that, as I said last night, consent of the governed is a farce, the state derives its legitimacy from that it existed before anyone alive was ever born. There is no real democratic reason that democratic will should be limited only to those terms that were agreed upon by people who died around the turn of the 20th century. The power of the state is inherited from the prior existence of the state, the same as a monarchy, it's merely the way government is composed that is different. That the right of popular sovereignty is subservient to the right of the state to maintain the territory that it inherited is emblematic of this. Secession is not a right in international law because popular sovereignty is nonsense, the sovereignty of the state comes from precedent and from the central authority, not from the democratic will of the people.

Alright, so I'm confused now.

Are you arguing in favor of or against self-determination?

[Punished UMN]

Where I'm going with it is that, as I said last night, consent of the governed is a farce, the state derives its legitimacy from that it existed before anyone alive was ever born. There is no real democratic reason that democratic will should be limited only to those terms that were agreed upon by people who died around the turn of the 20th century. The power of the state is inherited from the prior existence of the state, the same as a monarchy, it's merely the way government is composed that is different. That the right of popular sovereignty is subservient to the right of the state to maintain the territory that it inherited is emblematic of this. Secession is not a right in international law because popular sovereignty is nonsense, the sovereignty of the state comes from precedent and from the central authority, not from the democratic will of the people.

Alright, so I'm confused now.

Are you arguing in favor of or against self-determination?

I'm personally in favor of self-determination, I'm arguing that trying to reconcile self-determination with a centralized state.

[Lady Victory]

Alright, so I'm confused now.

Are you arguing in favor of or against self-determination?

I'm personally in favor of self-determination, I'm arguing that trying to reconcile self-determination with a centralized state.

That's an understandable position, and I see where you're coming from with it - the logic is there.

I'm not quite sure I agree with the idea the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, though.

[Shofercia]

That's the very definition of tyranny, Lumen. And if you don't hold a Referendum, that means that you're too afraid to lose it; otherwise, why wouldn't you hold a Referendum?

So tyranny is no longer tyranny if someone does something worse? That's essentially the argument that you're making.

It would make more sense to do it every 10 years, to match it with the census.


I just realized something. When Lumen says that something's "not Democratic" he means that it won't benefit the Democratic Party.

You don't know the definition of tyranny.

Is every county going to hold a referendum every ten years to decide what state they want to be in? What utter lunacy.

Seems to be working quite well for Switzerland.

I'm referring to the historical writings of Jefferson and Madison, but apparently referring to primary sources is now "rewriting History" accordingly to Lumen.

You mean how Oregon's Democratic Governor failed to respect that the elections didn't get the Democrats a quorum and decided to utilize violence to force the issue?

What part of the Republicans violated constitution do you not understand? She was within her rights to do it. I wouldnt have bowed to their demands at all and let the session expire with no budget and government services grind to a halt and put the blame entirely on them or possibly just passed things without a quorum.

What part of Democrats also violated the Constitution to declare an emergency measure to ram through policies that should've been subject to a referendum, and then used police force to drag Republicans to the floor to vote, do you not under Lumen? Are you for excessive police force when the Democrats do it?

I just realized something. When Lumen says that something's "not Democratic" he means that it won't benefit the Democratic Party.

Well then we'll compromise, in the name of conservatives undying commitment to true democracy and the consent of the governed, the people in those counties who specifically voted to join Idaho can, with exactly as much property as they personally own, and not a square inch more.

Anything else after all would be horrific tyranny and abuse of the people in those counties who voted in the minority.

That violates the secret ballot clause and fails to answer the question of why state borders are sacrosanct.

[Galloism]

I just realized something. When Lumen says that something's "not Democratic" he means that it won't benefit the Democratic Party.

Well then we'll compromise, in the name of conservatives undying commitment to true democracy and the consent of the governed, the people in those counties who specifically voted to join Idaho can, with exactly as much property as they personally own, and not a square inch more.

Anything else after all would be horrific tyranny and abuse of the people in those counties who voted in the minority.

Among other things, that would make road maintenance very difficult.

[Shofercia]

or how about people respect democracy and the outcome of elections?

Or how about the winners of the election respect the people and not act like tyrants?

You do realize you're asking Lumen that, right?

What part of the Oregon Democrats abused the emergency legislation provision to deny the people an opportunity to hold a referendum on the legislation as Oregon law allows do you not understand?

Quit pretending that your team is a bunch of choirboys whose shit doesn't stink.

How about acting like grown ups and using that against them in the next election instead of grinding government to a halt?

I would have let the session expire without a budget pinned the blame on Republicans for acting like children. Its seems the people approved of what Democrats did with their majority last session and as they sent them back with a unchanged majority in the state senate and only lost one seat in the House.

So if Republicans violate Constitution - use cops against them!
If Democrats violate Constitution - use that against them in the next election!

Anyone else wondering why Lumen's points aren't widely accepted outside of the DNC?

So tyranny is no longer tyranny is someone does something worse? That's essentially the argument that you're making.

No. I'm saying watch those stones you're throwing don't shatter the glass roof above your head. And that I have no sympathy with republicans on being on the wrong side of bureaucratic and political gamesmanship. If anything, democrats should get more aggressive given that they're basically fighting for democracy.

The problem with that statement, is that sometimes Republicans also have good ideas, and if you're denying ideas or criticisms just because they're coming from the other side, you're only playing with a partial deck; why deny yourself the "full deck" opportunity?

That's your argument, not mine.

riddle me this. Is it oppression when red states force their will on urban counties or is it only blue ones forcing their will on rural counties?

He just parodied your argument, and it flew right over your head.

[San Lumen]

You don't know the definition of tyranny.

Is every county going to hold a referendum every ten years to decide what state they want to be in? What utter lunacy.

Seems to be working quite well for Switzerland.

What part of the Republicans violated constitution do you not understand? She was within her rights to do it. I wouldnt have bowed to their demands at all and let the session expire with no budget and government services grind to a halt and put the blame entirely on them or possibly just passed things without a quorum.

What part of Democrats also violated the Constitution to declare an emergency measure to ram through policies that should've been subject to a referendum, and then used police force to drag Republicans to the floor to vote, do you not under Lumen? Are you for excessive police force when the Democrats do it?

Well then we'll compromise, in the name of conservatives undying commitment to true democracy and the consent of the governed, the people in those counties who specifically voted to join Idaho can, with exactly as much property as they personally own, and not a square inch more.

Anything else after all would be horrific tyranny and abuse of the people in those counties who voted in the minority.

That violates the secret ballot clause and fails to answer the question of why state borders are sacrosanct.

Republicans don't give a darn about about the planet and if they want to act like children and grandstand instead of worrying about if their children know about birds and fish other than from a book or natural beauty from a Bob Ross painting the heck with them.

No one said they were sacrosanct but its not going to be changed over we don't like the fact that we lose elections and don't get more representation than our population allows.

[Heloin]

If Eastern Oregon joins Idaho can Florida ditch the Panhandle and let Alabama deal with them?

[Punished UMN]

If Eastern Oregon joins Idaho can Florida ditch the Panhandle and let Alabama deal with them?

I guess the last part would depend on whether Alabama would willingly deal with them or not, but I see no reason why not to. Rock Scitt will never allow it though.

[Shofercia]

What part of the Republicans violated constitution do you not understand? She was within her rights to do it. I wouldnt have bowed to their demands at all and let the session expire with no budget and government services grind to a halt and put the blame entirely on them or possibly just passed things without a quorum.

Ja Mein Führer!! And zhen ve shall round zhem all up for disobeying mine Führer.

Well maybe those cities should just respect the result of a Free and Fair Election_TM. If they don't like it they can come back in 2 years with a better candidate. Or just move somewhere else.

What a stupid argument. How they not being oppressed by the state legislature by your logic or is only ok when Republicans do it?

How are they supposed to have a better candidate when the legislature is gerrymandered and their representatives are unlikely to sit in the majority?

You're the one claiming that they should just up and move. This entire thread is slowly turning into everyone using your arguments against you.

It has everything to do with it. Why arent they holding referendums to leave North Carolina? Why do only rural counties pull these stunts?

Rural counties don’t always pull these stunts. Several cities such as NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco have had movements to be their own states.

And tbh they should. I have no problem if they want to be their own state just like I have no problem here. Self determination is necessary for a free society

Can San Francisco please be its own state? Pretty please? Cherry on top?

And if they don’t like it or if it’s clearly not working out than they should have the self determination to vote as such.

According to many in this thread the US and several other nations should have just shut up and stopped complaining

This isn't self determination though.

This is being pissy that the GOP isn't being allowed to run the state into the ground, and keeping them from doing shit like re-introducing Jim Crow Laws, re-banning nonwhites from the state, or taking away women's right to vote.

Are we talking about Oregon in 2021?

[Heloin]

If Eastern Oregon joins Idaho can Florida ditch the Panhandle and let Alabama deal with them?

I guess the last part would depend on whether Alabama would willingly deal with them or not, but I see no reason why not to.

Alabama doesn't get a say in this.

Rock Scitt will never allow it though.

Scott can fuck right off into Pensacola, Alabama.

[The Black Forrest]

The states have to agree with it and of course the feds have to agree with it.

And? You follow the process. If it doesn’t work out then so be it. But to just outright refuse to allow it in the first place is just silly

*shrugs* Wanting to split off because you have issues the libs is rather stupid.

Hell we would have 300+ states if we allowed people what they wanted……

[The Black Forrest]

If Puerto Rico gets to vote on whether to join the U.S., why shouldn't Oregonians get to vote on whether to join Idaho? Self-determination is what our country was founded on, and tyranny of the majority was quite literally the Framers' greatest fear. If you don't like the Framers or their principles, then fine, but for OP to attempt to discredit this when it is a legitimate example of self-determination is another matter.

Follow up as I think I responded to the wrong post.

What tyranny of the majority are you talking about?

The framers may have mentioned that and yet I doubt they would have gone along with freely splitting up states.

If the small amount of cons want this? Why not move? The state splitters tend to be a small group. The majority simply vote as “that’s a good idea”

Why move to Idaho? The population is 1.7 million. I think there is plenty of room to take these poor liberal oppressed refugees.

[Proctopeo]

Republicans don't give a darn about about the planet and if they want to act like children and grandstand instead of worrying about if their children know about birds and fish other than from a book or natural beauty from a Bob Ross painting the heck with them.

You've been recycling this argument for years, with marginal changes to wording.

Though I suppose since you're playing this card again, I should recycle old material, too. What do you think about nuclear power, the cleanest energy source?

Why not move?

It's been pointed out several times in this thread that it's not that simple. Moving is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. It's even harder if you're a farmer, as are, I assume, a large amount of people in these counties.

[The Black Forrest]

Republicans don't give a darn about about the planet and if they want to act like children and grandstand instead of worrying about if their children know about birds and fish other than from a book or natural beauty from a Bob Ross painting the heck with them.

You've been recycling this argument for years, with marginal changes to wording.

Though I suppose since you're playing this card again, I should recycle old material, too. What do you think about nuclear power, the cleanest energy source?

Why not move?

It's been pointed out several times in this thread that it's not that simple. Moving is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. It's even harder if you're a farmer, as are, I assume, a large amount of people in these counties.

Oh I think splitting a state takes more effort. As I mentioned I think the people who want this are tiny. The majority are “hey that sounds like a good idea”

They probably voted for the ex-president as well so……

Sorry no sympathy. If you can’t win elections; maybe it’s your views.

[San Lumen]

If Puerto Rico gets to vote on whether to join the U.S., why shouldn't Oregonians get to vote on whether to join Idaho? Self-determination is what our country was founded on, and tyranny of the majority was quite literally the Framers' greatest fear. If you don't like the Framers or their principles, then fine, but for OP to attempt to discredit this when it is a legitimate example of self-determination is another matter.

Follow up as I think I responded to the wrong post.

What tyranny of the majority are you talking about?

The framers may have mentioned that and yet I doubt they would have gone along with freely splitting up states.

If the small amount of cons want this? Why not move? The state splitters tend to be a small group. The majority simply vote as “that’s a good idea”

Why move to Idaho? The population is 1.7 million. I think there is plenty of room to take these poor liberal oppressed refugees.

Plus they picked the date of local elections in an off year to hold this referendum when turnout is at its absolute lowest.

[Proctopeo]

You've been recycling this argument for years, with marginal changes to wording.

Though I suppose since you're playing this card again, I should recycle old material, too. What do you think about nuclear power, the cleanest energy source?


It's been pointed out several times in this thread that it's not that simple. Moving is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. It's even harder if you're a farmer, as are, I assume, a large amount of people in these counties.

Oh I think splitting a state takes more effort.

For the bureaucrats, maybe. That's their job, though.

You're awfully dismissive of the difficulty of moving. If it's so easy that you can "just move", why don't you demonstrate? Call the U-Hall, my guy, you're moving!

As I mentioned I think the people who want this are tiny. The majority are “hey that sounds like a good idea”

...so, the majority of people in these counties do want it, because they think it sounds like a good idea. You're creating a dichotomy where one doesn't even exist.

They probably voted for the ex-president as well so……

Irrelevant.

Sorry no sympathy. If you can’t win elections; maybe it’s your views.

Is "it's okay for your government to shaft you because I think your views suck" really your argument here?
Not winning elections isn't even the big part of it - their issue seems to be that the state government, at best, actively ignores their needs and interests.

[The Two Jerseys]

Follow up as I think I responded to the wrong post.

What tyranny of the majority are you talking about?

The framers may have mentioned that and yet I doubt they would have gone along with freely splitting up states.

If the small amount of cons want this? Why not move? The state splitters tend to be a small group. The majority simply vote as “that’s a good idea”

Why move to Idaho? The population is 1.7 million. I think there is plenty of room to take these poor liberal oppressed refugees.

Plus they picked the date of local elections in an off year to hold this referendum when turnout is at its absolute lowest.

And your point is?

[San Lumen]

Oh I think splitting a state takes more effort.

For the bureaucrats, maybe. That's their job, though.

You're awfully dismissive of the difficulty of moving. If it's so easy that you can "just move", why don't you demonstrate? Call the U-Hall, my guy, you're moving!

As I mentioned I think the people who want this are tiny. The majority are “hey that sounds like a good idea”

...so, the majority of people in these counties do want it, because they think it sounds like a good idea. You're creating a dichotomy where one doesn't even exist.

They probably voted for the ex-president as well so……

Irrelevant.

Sorry no sympathy. If you can’t win elections; maybe it’s your views.

Is "it's okay for your government to shaft you because I think your views suck" really your argument here?
Not winning elections isn't even the big part of it - their issue seems to be that the state government, at best, actively ignores their needs and interests.

Their representatives in the capital grinding government to a halt doesn't make the rest of the legislators want to have much sympathy for them.

How are their needs being ignored?

Here's a truly ingenious solution act like adults and vote against bills you dont like and start working with the other side and don't treat them like they are your enemy?

[Proctopeo]

For the bureaucrats, maybe. That's their job, though.

You're awfully dismissive of the difficulty of moving. If it's so easy that you can "just move", why don't you demonstrate? Call the U-Hall, my guy, you're moving!


...so, the majority of people in these counties do want it, because they think it sounds like a good idea. You're creating a dichotomy where one doesn't even exist.


Irrelevant.



Is "it's okay for your government to shaft you because I think your views suck" really your argument here?
Not winning elections isn't even the big part of it - their issue seems to be that the state government, at best, actively ignores their needs and interests.

Their representatives in the capital grinding government to a halt doesn't make the rest of the legislators want to have much sympathy for them.

Well, their representatives were working in the interest of their constituents. The fact this angered the people who were deliberately screwing them over is tangential.

How are their needs being ignored?

See above.

Here's a truly ingenious solution act like adults and vote against bills you dont like and start working with the other side and don't treat them like they are your enemy?

Could the Oregon Democrats start first? They're the ones being dicks to the rural citizens.

[The Black Forrest]

Oh I think splitting a state takes more effort.

For the bureaucrats, maybe. That's their job, though.

You're awfully dismissive of the difficulty of moving. If it's so easy that you can "just move", why don't you demonstrate? Call the U-Hall, my guy, you're moving!

*shrugs* Oh I have heard of you don’t like it lib, move! for years. Why is it bad for them to hear that?

How are they being oppressed enough to split the state?

I don’t like libs is a stupid arguement.

As I mentioned I think the people who want this are tiny. The majority are “hey that sounds like a good idea”

...so, the majority of people in these counties do want it, because they think it sounds like a good idea. You're creating a dichotomy where one doesn't even exist.

Not really. If they are commited to work on the effort and spend money for the effort? Sure. I suspect the majority haven’t done either.

They probably voted for the ex-president as well so……

Irrelevant.

If they voted for Biden, you would be correct. However, I suspect the voted for the ex-president.

Sorry no sympathy. If you can’t win elections; maybe it’s your views.

Is "it's okay for your government to shaft you because I think your views suck" really your argument here?
Not winning elections isn't even the big part of it - their issue seems to be that the state government, at best, actively ignores their needs and interests.

Again how are they being oppressed?

I don’t like libs isn’t an arguement.

[Galloism]

Again how are they being oppressed?

I don’t like libs isn’t an arguement.

Well we learned last year that they were deliberately suppressing their right to vote on new legislation as spelled out in the Oregon Constitution.

[The Black Forrest]

Again how are they being oppressed?

I don’t like libs isn’t an arguement.

Well we learned last year that they were deliberately suppressing their right to vote on new legislation as spelled out in the Oregon Constitution.

Wait. Explain? They wanted to recall?