Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Shofercia]

Nope, but you implied that the proposal was driven by Bundy's craziness and I pointed out that I highly doubt that everyone's who's on board wants Bundy's craziness.

I don’t think everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a terrible person who has a positive desire for corruption, autocracy, and bad social outcomes either— indictment of elite-level leaders of a movement, and of the movement’s political goals, is not the same as personal criticism of every single supporter of said movement. Attempting to equate the two is a rather pathetic effort to avoid confronting the political reality— in this case, that right-wing extremists in eastern Oregon are becoming increasingly dangerous and are laying the groundwork for even more dangerous and violent activity.

I'm still not seeing how respecting the results of the referendum is going to lead to dangerous and violent activity. Perhaps you could cite historical examples where every citizen was allowed to vote, and the referendum still cause dangerous and violent activity, as I'm not recalling any.

[Salus Maior]

I don’t think everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a terrible person who has a positive desire for corruption, autocracy, and bad social outcomes either— indictment of elite-level leaders of a movement, and of the movement’s political goals, is not the same as personal criticism of every single supporter of said movement. Attempting to equate the two is a rather pathetic effort to avoid confronting the political reality— in this case, that right-wing extremists in eastern Oregon are becoming increasingly dangerous and are laying the groundwork for even more dangerous and violent activity.

I'm still not seeing how respecting the results of the referendum is going to lead to dangerous and violent activity. Perhaps you could cite historical examples where every citizen was allowed to vote, and the referendum still cause dangerous and violent activity, as I'm not recalling any.

On the contrary, in similar situations to this, holding and respecting fair and legal referenda was a resolution to problems of political violence.

[Thermodolia]

https://www.ijpr.org/environment-energy-and-transportation/2021-05-23/irrigators-set-up-encampment-next-to-klamath-project-headgates

^ somewhat related-- far-right agitator Ammon Bundy and others are openly planning to force open a key irrigation canal in the Klamath Basin, as the massive drought impacting much of Oregon and the Western US has led to water being cut off to farmers and massive fish kills in the low, overheated river

Fuck Bundy

[Narland]

https://www.ijpr.org/environment-energy-and-transportation/2021-05-23/irrigators-set-up-encampment-next-to-klamath-project-headgates

^ somewhat related-- far-right agitator Ammon Bundy and others are openly planning to force open a key irrigation canal in the Klamath Basin, as the massive drought impacting much of Oregon and the Western US has led to water being cut off to farmers and massive fish kills in the low, overheated river

Fuck Bundy

How does this contribute to the conversation? I am sure there are constructive things to add in the form of critique regarding the Greater Idaho project or the seeming perennial water rights fight to keep local farmers from going out of business. I do not agree with many of your posts (probably due to differences in perspective), but often you make good points.

I do not like the alternative of having to buy my food from ADM, Monsanto and the usual suspects of interlocking globalist corporations. I do prefer to buy local first, which means having local farmers to buy from.

[Vassenor]

Fuck Bundy

How does this contribute to the conversation? I am sure there are constructive things to add in the form of critique regarding the Greater Idaho project or the seeming perennial water rights fight to keep local farmers from going out of business. I do not agree with many of your posts (probably due to differences in perspective), but often you make good points.

I do not like the alternative of having to buy my food from ADM, Monsanto and the usual suspects of interlocking globalist corporations. I do prefer to buy local first, which means having local farmers to buy from.

And are they doing this to help, or just to feel vaguely like they're sticking it to the government like when they occupied a federal wildlife refuge?

[Narland]

How does this contribute to the conversation? I am sure there are constructive things to add in the form of critique regarding the Greater Idaho project or the seeming perennial water rights fight to keep local farmers from going out of business. I do not agree with many of your posts (probably due to differences in perspective), but often you make good points.

I do not like the alternative of having to buy my food from ADM, Monsanto and the usual suspects of interlocking globalist corporations. I do prefer to buy local first, which means having local farmers to buy from.

And are they doing this to help, or just to feel vaguely like they're sticking it to the government like when they occupied a federal wildlife refuge?

Both. Once some corrupt cops at the federal level try to fabricate evidence against you and try to take down not just you but your entire family and way of life in violation of your constitutional rights, a person tends to get jaundiced. The question is what do you do with that betrayal afterwards. They aren't perfect (nobody is) but they do believe in the Constitution, Freedom, Federalism, self-government. They believe firmly as a matter of conviction in protecting the civil rights of the individual and helping those taken advantage of by bad government policy.

[Vassenor]

And are they doing this to help, or just to feel vaguely like they're sticking it to the government like when they occupied a federal wildlife refuge?

Both. Once some corrupt cops at the federal level try to fabricate evidence against you and try to take down not just you but your entire family and way of life in violation of your constitutional rights, a person tends to get jaundiced. The question is what do you do with that betrayal afterwards. They aren't perfect (nobody is) but they do believe in the Constitution, Freedom, Federalism, self-government. They believe firmly as a matter of conviction in protecting the civil rights of the individual and helping those taken advantage of by bad government policy.

Bad government policy like the federal government having control of federal land.

[Narland]

Both. Once some corrupt cops at the federal level try to fabricate evidence against you and try to take down not just you but your entire family and way of life in violation of your constitutional rights, a person tends to get jaundiced. The question is what do you do with that betrayal afterwards. They aren't perfect (nobody is) but they do believe in the Constitution, Freedom, Federalism, self-government. They believe firmly as a matter of conviction in protecting the civil rights of the individual and helping those taken advantage of by bad government policy.

Bad government policy like the federal government having control of federal land.

Like corrupt BLM agents deliberately killing endangered animals and blaming it on the rancher's livestock which started the original standoff. . All charges were dropped as it implicates a lot of entrenched corrupted parties in the Federal government for criminal malfeasance, deprivation of rights under color of law, and misprision of felony. All the charges were dropped against the Bundys, abd they (the Bundys) need permission to sue, which which no Federal court in its right mind is going to give.

[Narland]

Both. Once some corrupt cops at the federal level try to fabricate evidence against you and try to take down not just you but your entire family and way of life in violation of your constitutional rights, a person tends to get jaundiced. The question is what do you do with that betrayal afterwards. They aren't perfect (nobody is) but they do believe in the Constitution, Freedom, Federalism, self-government. They believe firmly as a matter of conviction in protecting the civil rights of the individual and helping those taken advantage of by bad government policy.

Bad government policy like the federal government having control of federal land.

Sorry, I missed your misstatement altogether. The Federal government manages the land. that is why it is named the Bureau of Land Management. The ownership of the land in in the States in question (Oregon and Nevada) all public land is titled to the respective counties themselves, or the People of the County or its corporations (cities, towns, port authorities, etc.). Call any County Clerk in Nevada and they will let you know. Except for the normative exceptions(US Constitution) Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 17).

The Federal Government manages the land on behalf of, and in the interest of the respective States and the people of their counties (and corporations -- again meaning cities, towns etc,) because they did not have enough people back then to do so for themselves. Management on behalf of a second party's interest and control (as in domination over) to spite their interests are two distinct things.

To say federally managed land, that is correct. To say Federal Lands is incorrect as that is by law, Washington DC, places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings is all the Federal government is allowed within member States. That is it. anything else is unlawful. The States own title deed to everything else.

[Salus Maior]

https://www.ijpr.org/environment-energy-and-transportation/2021-05-23/irrigators-set-up-encampment-next-to-klamath-project-headgates

^ somewhat related-- far-right agitator Ammon Bundy and others are openly planning to force open a key irrigation canal in the Klamath Basin, as the massive drought impacting much of Oregon and the Western US has led to water being cut off to farmers and massive fish kills in the low, overheated river

I'm pretty sure this is completely unrelated to a referendum deciding whether counties stay in one state or another.

[San Lumen]

https://www.ijpr.org/environment-energy-and-transportation/2021-05-23/irrigators-set-up-encampment-next-to-klamath-project-headgates

^ somewhat related-- far-right agitator Ammon Bundy and others are openly planning to force open a key irrigation canal in the Klamath Basin, as the massive drought impacting much of Oregon and the Western US has led to water being cut off to farmers and massive fish kills in the low, overheated river

I'm pretty sure this is completely unrelated to a referendum deciding whether counties stay in one state or another.

It is. I don't see how its related at all.

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

Exactly. Freedom of movement. That's your basic American's individual right of self determination. If you don't like it where you are at, move to another state. There's 50 of them plus the district and several territories. One thing in this case, don't let the sign at your state's border smack you on the ass on your way out.

That is the issue. They are being outvoted not by themselves within their self-governing jurisdictions (counties), but by outsiders from the other counties (using the State legislature) to impose how the outside counties operate upon them.

This is one of the key grievances in the unanimous Declaration recognized as a tenet for reorganization. It is why we have Pennsylvania as distinguished from New Jersey, and Delaware; an independent Vermont from Massachusetts by the end of the Colonial era and West Virginia since Independence. Most of the time reorganization is peaceful. A few times counties have been at war within themselves over the seats of their own jurisdiction as well as a state of mixed war, the last being in 1950s. In western states until recently it was expected for counties growing beyond 35,000 people to split into more counties. Unfortunately, there is a move generally to resist this since the 1950s by the county seats because it diminishes their administrative power base.

The movement in this case is out of a disaffected and disinterested State jurisdiction not to its own State, but into an already established State jurisdiction that shares their interest and good will in common.

How much less administrative power can you get in these counties with a population of less than 2 people per square mile? Keep in mind the US pop density per square is 92.9 in 2019. These potatoes are too small to make fries outta, son.

[Myrensis]

It's nice that you have the tremendous courage to acknowledge...basic facts and reality, but doesn't mean much because the Republican party does not.

That view of the other side is because that is what they actually believe, and why the actual Republican controlled State Government of Arizona is conducting an "audit" where they have a crackpot with zero election experience pointing UV lights at ballots based on a QAnon conspiracy theory about Trump covertly ordering millions of ballots to be printed with secret watermarks so he could totally expose the Democrats massive fraud, and also rammed through a law literally stripping the Democratic Secretary of State of her authority to defend the state against bullshit election lawsuits.

And why Republicans in Texas are busily trying to rewrite the law that currently requires actual evidence of voter fraud to overturn the results of an election to say that just having a strong gut feeling that something was wrong should qualify.

And why Liz Cheney had to be purged from her leadership position for the crime of suggesting that the party should probably remain committed to acknowledging reality and democratic norms.

And why you have Republicans who were caught on camera barricading doors and taking cover behind Capitol police on January 6th now insisting with a straight face that there was just a friendly tourist group passing by and nothing at all unusual happened.

I'll even grant you that most of the Republican politicians involved know it's bullshit...but they're doing it anyway because their political survival depends on it, because that is the shit their base overwhelmingly believes and supports and demands action on.

I know it sucks, Shofercia, but the days when the crazies could be kept off camera and thus whitewashed and glossed over are long gone, and your attempts to blame Hillary Clinton for the Republican Party losing it's mind and becoming Donald Trumps personal death cult are just comical.

First, I'm not a member of any party.

Second, Liz Cheney is a warmonger, and wars cost money. The Republicans have to balance out the Libertarian Wing of "our debt is too high!" with the Populist Wing of "give us more Government Stimuli" and wasting money on warfare isn't going to help that. This is why Cheney's being purged, whereas Collins is not, even though Collins also spoke out against Trump. Cheney can cry all of the "Orange Man Bad" crocodile tears she wants, but the real reason is that Neocons became the dinosaurs in the Republican Party ever since they backstabbed the Republicans with the Lincoln Project. So on the basis of policy and faction power, Cheney's just a waste of space in the Republican Party.

Seriously, compare her to Collins, who is balancing out the Populists with the Libertarians - what's the difference in their stance on Trump? They're both elderly white ladies, but one's purged, the other isn't, and policies are the reason, but you're too blind to see that, because you don't think that Republicans act on policies. "My faction backstabbed my party, my economic policies misalign with my party, but the real reason I'm purged is because Orange Man Bad, waaa!" Suuuure. And I distinctly remember a Clinton supporter on NSG trying to argue that "Orange Man Bad" should be banned under the doctrine of political nicknaming, but of course it's the Republicans that want to shut down discourse!

This is just laughable. "It's just coincidence that Cheney got purged after refusing to shut the fuck up about the Big Lie that is now the foundation of the Republican Party, they actually got rid of her because they just now noticed that she's a warmonger, and were afraid she was going to singlehandedly start a new war despite being one member of the minority party in Congress." Why did the vote to oust her fail in February, but take less than 16 minutes in May? Did she nuke Moscow while nobody was looking? Or was it maybe because she continued to publicly criticize Trumps behavior and lies about the election?

Collins has no leadership position to be ousted from and is a Senator from a State that Biden, Clinton, and Obama all carried easily. McConnell knows perfectly well that trying to replace her with someone who will play nice with the Trump cult will just hand that seat to a Democrat.

But I do thank you for the classic deflection of "Yeah, the entire Republican Party is doing X, but look! there's a random liberal on the internet who also did X, so see bothsame!"

Fourth, the Republican Texas Law has yet to be established and challenged in SCOTUS, and need I remind you that SCOTUS sided with Biden, despite being Republican. Also, most of the Republicans I know are saying that January 6th was the same as the violent protests that lit shit on fire, which they've also opposed. I've yet to see a Republican who's like "January 6th FTW!" Even those who thought about participating, privately admitted that it was wrong. In fact Collins didn't even want to block the January 6th Commission. Not seeing her lose much support over that. And just to be clear, my main issue with SCOTUS remains the disastrous "Churches < Casinos" ruling, which had nothing to do with the election.

Please, the only reason Republicans are able to get away with this bullshit in the first place is the (then smaller) conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act. They sided with Biden because Trump and his supporters had a clown car of incompetents demanding that they void millions of legally cast votes outright to hand him the election, but they've always been quite sympathetic to voter suppression measures presented by competent lawyers piously insisting that they're just trying to sEcUre oUr EleCtiOnS (from all those brown voters).

Though I do find it funny that you don't even try to deny or defend what they're trying to do, and instead just insist it's okay because maybe the Courts will stop it!

[Shofercia]

First, I'm not a member of any party.

Second, Liz Cheney is a warmonger, and wars cost money. The Republicans have to balance out the Libertarian Wing of "our debt is too high!" with the Populist Wing of "give us more Government Stimuli" and wasting money on warfare isn't going to help that. This is why Cheney's being purged, whereas Collins is not, even though Collins also spoke out against Trump. Cheney can cry all of the "Orange Man Bad" crocodile tears she wants, but the real reason is that Neocons became the dinosaurs in the Republican Party ever since they backstabbed the Republicans with the Lincoln Project. So on the basis of policy and faction power, Cheney's just a waste of space in the Republican Party.

Seriously, compare her to Collins, who is balancing out the Populists with the Libertarians - what's the difference in their stance on Trump? They're both elderly white ladies, but one's purged, the other isn't, and policies are the reason, but you're too blind to see that, because you don't think that Republicans act on policies. "My faction backstabbed my party, my economic policies misalign with my party, but the real reason I'm purged is because Orange Man Bad, waaa!" Suuuure. And I distinctly remember a Clinton supporter on NSG trying to argue that "Orange Man Bad" should be banned under the doctrine of political nicknaming, but of course it's the Republicans that want to shut down discourse!

This is just laughable. "It's just coincidence that Cheney got purged after refusing to shut the fuck up about the Big Lie that is now the foundation of the Republican Party, they actually got rid of her because they just now noticed that she's a warmonger, and were afraid she was going to singlehandedly start a new war despite being one member of the minority party in Congress." Why did the vote to oust her fail in February, but take less than 16 minutes in May? Did she nuke Moscow while nobody was looking? Or was it maybe because she continued to publicly criticize Trumps behavior and lies about the election?

Has Collins relented from her criticism? https://bangordailynews.com/2021/01/11/ ... ment-case/

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins saved her harshest words for President Donald Trump since the Capitol riot for a Bangor Daily News Op-Ed on Monday saying he incited it and gave a “terrible” response...

Collins has no leadership position to be ousted from and is a Senator from a State that Biden, Clinton, and Obama all carried easily. McConnell knows perfectly well that trying to replace her with someone who will play nice with the Trump cult will just hand that seat to a Democrat.

Myrensis: The entire Republican Party is Trump's Cult!
Also Myrensis: Susan Collins is the best Republicans will get in Maine, so they'll tolerate her even though she's anti-Trump!

Yep, that's certainly laughable, or do you not recall the Iraq War?

But I do thank you for the classic deflection of "Yeah, the entire Republican Party is doing X, but look! there's a random liberal on the internet who also did X, so see bothsame!"

What are you even talking about?

Fourth, the Republican Texas Law has yet to be established and challenged in SCOTUS, and need I remind you that SCOTUS sided with Biden, despite being Republican. Also, most of the Republicans I know are saying that January 6th was the same as the violent protests that lit shit on fire, which they've also opposed. I've yet to see a Republican who's like "January 6th FTW!" Even those who thought about participating, privately admitted that it was wrong. In fact Collins didn't even want to block the January 6th Commission. Not seeing her lose much support over that. And just to be clear, my main issue with SCOTUS remains the disastrous "Churches < Casinos" ruling, which had nothing to do with the election.

Please, the only reason Republicans are able to get away with this bullshit in the first place is the (then smaller) conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act. They sided with Biden because Trump and his supporters had a clown car of incompetents demanding that they void millions of legally cast votes outright to hand him the election, but they've always been quite sympathetic to voter suppression measures presented by competent lawyers piously insisting that they're just trying to sEcUre oUr EleCtiOnS (from all those brown voters).

"Republicans are the Party of Trump, therefore Republican Justices sided with Biden" - Myrensis Logic

Also, the final tally for the five most critical states was less than 160,000 votes out of 155 million votes cast, or 0.1%. SCOTUS didn't need to agree with Trump's arguments to ensure his reelection, and yet, they didn't, even though SCOTUS has certainly pulled an even wilder stunt back in 2000 in Bush v Gore

Though I do find it funny that you don't even try to deny or defend what they're trying to do, and instead just insist it's okay because maybe the Courts will stop it!

I typically don't read state laws that haven't been passed, unless we're talking about economic laws affecting California, and I prefer not to comment on laws that I don't read, which for you is also somehow nefarious. Although hey, you probably love MSNBC, so I can see how they'd be offended by it, and quite frankly, it's not that surprising when you're defending Cheney, not because you agree with any of her policies, but because she's mean to the really, really, really bad man, and "Orange Man Bad" seems to trump all logic and common sense when it comes to certain responses.

[Narland]

That is the issue. They are being outvoted not by themselves within their self-governing jurisdictions (counties), but by outsiders from the other counties (using the State legislature) to impose how the outside counties operate upon them.

This is one of the key grievances in the unanimous Declaration recognized as a tenet for reorganization. It is why we have Pennsylvania as distinguished from New Jersey, and Delaware; an independent Vermont from Massachusetts by the end of the Colonial era and West Virginia since Independence. Most of the time reorganization is peaceful. A few times counties have been at war within themselves over the seats of their own jurisdiction as well as a state of mixed war, the last being in 1950s. In western states until recently it was expected for counties growing beyond 35,000 people to split into more counties. Unfortunately, there is a move generally to resist this since the 1950s by the county seats because it diminishes their administrative power base.

The movement in this case is out of a disaffected and disinterested State jurisdiction not to its own State, but into an already established State jurisdiction that shares their interest and good will in common.

How much less administrative power can you get in these counties with a population of less than 2 people per square mile? Keep in mind the US pop density per square is 92.9 in 2019. These potatoes are too small to make fries outta, son.

That is exactly the point. They don't need people who don't live there, who don't work there, and who have such different attitudes that they cannot represent them in the conduct their lives. No one from the city wants rural ranchers and farmers in the < 5/mi^2 who are expert at raising crops, a family, and providing food for scores if not thousands of people every year but know little about city life micromanaging downtown metro for those in the >12.5/mi^2 pop density. Neither do those in the >12.5.mi^2 who are experts in some portion of city life but know little about country life micromanaging their farms and ranches in the <5/mi^2.

[Myrensis]

This is just laughable. "It's just coincidence that Cheney got purged after refusing to shut the fuck up about the Big Lie that is now the foundation of the Republican Party, they actually got rid of her because they just now noticed that she's a warmonger, and were afraid she was going to singlehandedly start a new war despite being one member of the minority party in Congress." Why did the vote to oust her fail in February, but take less than 16 minutes in May? Did she nuke Moscow while nobody was looking? Or was it maybe because she continued to publicly criticize Trumps behavior and lies about the election?

Has Collins relented from her criticism? https://bangordailynews.com/2021/01/11/ ... ment-case/

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins saved her harshest words for President Donald Trump since the Capitol riot for a Bangor Daily News Op-Ed on Monday saying he incited it and gave a “terrible” response...

Collins has no leadership position to be ousted from and is a Senator from a State that Biden, Clinton, and Obama all carried easily. McConnell knows perfectly well that trying to replace her with someone who will play nice with the Trump cult will just hand that seat to a Democrat.

Myrensis: The entire Republican Party is Trump's Cult!
Also Myrensis: Susan Collins is the best Republicans will get in Maine, so they'll tolerate her even though she's anti-Trump!

Yep, that's certainly laughable, or do you not recall the Iraq War?

Shofercia: If Collins hasn't been removed from a leadership position that she doesn't have, and holds a seat in a State that the Trump cult can't win, that proves that everything is fine and there's nothing to see here!

But I do thank you for the classic deflection of "Yeah, the entire Republican Party is doing X, but look! there's a random liberal on the internet who also did X, so see bothsame!"

What are you even talking about?

Your little anecdote about some rando on NS suggesting that 'orange man bad' should banned as political nicknaming.

Please, the only reason Republicans are able to get away with this bullshit in the first place is the (then smaller) conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act. They sided with Biden because Trump and his supporters had a clown car of incompetents demanding that they void millions of legally cast votes outright to hand him the election, but they've always been quite sympathetic to voter suppression measures presented by competent lawyers piously insisting that they're just trying to sEcUre oUr EleCtiOnS (from all those brown voters).

"Republicans are the Party of Trump, therefore Republican Justices sided with Biden" - Myrensis Logic

Also, the final tally for the five most critical states was less than 160,000 votes out of 155 million votes cast, or 0.1%. SCOTUS didn't need to agree with Trump's arguments to ensure his reelection, and yet, they didn't, even though SCOTUS has certainly pulled an even wilder stunt back in 2000 in Bush v Gore

"The Republican Justices didn't openly throw the election to Trump by voiding hundreds of thousands to millions of legally cast votes on the basis of a youtube video from EagleFreedomJesusPatriot01, therefore their history of enabling Republican voter suppression and tilting the scales in their favor doesn't count!" -Shofercia logic

Thank you for the reminder that when they could do it with a veneer of respectability and legal justification, they did in fact install a Republican President who had lost the vote, but it's a bit counterproductive to your argument.

Though I do find it funny that you don't even try to deny or defend what they're trying to do, and instead just insist it's okay because maybe the Courts will stop it!

I typically don't read state laws that haven't been passed, unless we're talking about economic laws affecting California, and I prefer not to comment on laws that I don't read, which for you is also somehow nefarious. Although hey, you probably love MSNBC, so I can see how they'd be offended by it, and quite frankly, it's not that surprising when you're defending Cheney, not because you agree with any of her policies, but because she's mean to the really, really, really bad man, and "Orange Man Bad" seems to trump all logic and common sense when it comes to certain responses.

Yeah, no, pointing out that Cheney was removed from her leadership position because she kept provoking Trump and his cult by suggesting that the GOP should acknowledge basic reality is not 'defending' her. I am in fact generally irritated by this habit of certain democrats and liberals of lionizing Republicans who spent their entire careers feeding their base the kool-aid that paved the way for Trump just because they've gotten cold feet now that he is the one with the hand on the leash.

Though I can't help but notice you seem to have casually avoided answering the question of why Cheney's warmongering ways suddenly became such an urgent issue in May (coincidentally after she once again publicly criticized Trump and his lies about the election) that she was removed in 15 minutes, but wasn't a problem in February when they first tried to oust her for...publicly criticizing Trump and his lies about the election.

[San Lumen]

How much less administrative power can you get in these counties with a population of less than 2 people per square mile? Keep in mind the US pop density per square is 92.9 in 2019. These potatoes are too small to make fries outta, son.

That is exactly the point. They don't need people who don't live there, who don't work there, and who have such different attitudes that they cannot represent them in the conduct their lives. No one from the city wants rural ranchers and farmers in the < 5/mi^2 who are expert at raising crops, a family, and providing food for scores if not thousands of people every year but know little about city life micromanaging downtown metro for those in the >12.5/mi^2 pop density. Neither do those in the >12.5.mi^2 who are experts in some portion of city life but know little about country life micromanaging their farms and ranches in the <5/mi^2.

Are you aware of how a representative democracy works? You get representation based on your population. Rural areas have less because they have less people. What happens in the capital affects everyone regardless of who you voted for or if you voted at all.

What is your solution?

[Narland]

That is exactly the point. They don't need people who don't live there, who don't work there, and who have such different attitudes that they cannot represent them in the conduct their lives. No one from the city wants rural ranchers and farmers in the < 5/mi^2 who are expert at raising crops, a family, and providing food for scores if not thousands of people every year but know little about city life micromanaging downtown metro for those in the >12.5/mi^2 pop density. Neither do those in the >12.5.mi^2 who are experts in some portion of city life but know little about country life micromanaging their farms and ranches in the <5/mi^2.

Are you aware of how a representative democracy works? You get representation based on your population. Rural areas have less because they have less people. What happens in the capital affects everyone regardless of who you voted for or if you voted at all.

What is your solution?

I am not being snarky, but what I just typed (and what I have been typing in previous posts) is the solution. Also that is what representative means (conversely stated, obviously). It is also exercising lawful self-determination according to the principles of Federalism upon which the United States, the former Oregon Country, and the current States involved were formed as a basis of their law.

You may live in a State wherein the Counties are not Chartered but are under direct administration of the State Legislature. This is not the case for the Counties of the former Oregon Country (sans British Columbia). They are chartered with their own delegated powers distinct from State operation which the Legislature may supervise with the consent of the governed within those counties.

Letting the process play out just as it did for other reorganization such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and what created the current States of Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and West Virginia is nothing new. They may succeed or they may fail, but they have the right to try. The difference is they are not seeking their own Statehood, but transference into a border State within the former Oregon Country.

[San Lumen]

Are you aware of how a representative democracy works? You get representation based on your population. Rural areas have less because they have less people. What happens in the capital affects everyone regardless of who you voted for or if you voted at all.

What is your solution?

I am not being snarky, but what I just typed (and what I have been typing in previous posts) is the solution. Also that is what representative means (conversely stated, obviously). It is also exercising lawful self-determination according to the principles of Federalism upon which the United States, the former Oregon Country, and the current States involved were formed as a basis of their law.

You may live in a State wherein the Counties are not Chartered but are under direct administration of the State Legislature. This is not the case for the Counties of the former Oregon Country (sans British Columbia). They are chartered with their own delegated powers distinct from State operation which the Legislature may supervise with the consent of the governed within those counties.

Letting the process play out just as it did for other reorganization such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and what created the current States of Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and West Virginia is nothing new. They may succeed or they may fail, but they have the right to try. The difference is they are not seeking their own Statehood, but transference into a border State within the former Oregon Country.

i dont follow. Are you suggesting that laws passed in the capital don't apply to them without their express consent? That's not how a republic works.

[Shofercia]

Has Collins relented from her criticism? https://bangordailynews.com/2021/01/11/ ... ment-case/





Myrensis: The entire Republican Party is Trump's Cult!
Also Myrensis: Susan Collins is the best Republicans will get in Maine, so they'll tolerate her even though she's anti-Trump!

Yep, that's certainly laughable, or do you not recall the Iraq War?

Shofercia: If Collins hasn't been removed from a leadership position that she doesn't have, and holds a seat in a State that the Trump cult can't win, that proves that everything is fine and there's nothing to see here!

You're actually claiming that Trump's Cult controls the Republican Party, while at the same time claiming that it doesn't control Collins, who's a Republican... And proceeding to defend Cheney, even though her fiscal policies, (ya know, bad fiscal policy, the reason Republicans lost Georgia,) are a death knell for the Populist and Libertarian factions of the Republican Party.

Normally, when people say "we don't want someone who will destroy our power to lead us" - that's a good thing. But because Cheney also said "Orange Man Bad" - she's not being booted for bad leadership, nope, it's all about Trump. At this point I have to wonder, if I shoot a white male and say "Orange Man Bad" am I even going to be prosecuted in a Blue State? Aside from "Orange Man Bad" and its related policies, can you name a single policy that Cheney has that you support?

What are you even talking about?

Your little anecdote about some rando on NS suggesting that 'orange man bad' should banned as political nicknaming.

Ah, so stating facts is bad if it shows Liberals doing bad things. Gotcha. I'll make sure to continue doing that. Also, my point was that it's not the entire Republican Party that's doing X, that's pretty much been the gist of my argument, that you've missed. You actually missed the main part of my argument. That's bad.

"Republicans are the Party of Trump, therefore Republican Justices sided with Biden" - Myrensis Logic

Also, the final tally for the five most critical states was less than 160,000 votes out of 155 million votes cast, or 0.1%. SCOTUS didn't need to agree with Trump's arguments to ensure his reelection, and yet, they didn't, even though SCOTUS has certainly pulled an even wilder stunt back in 2000 in Bush v Gore

"The Republican Justices didn't openly throw the election to Trump by voiding hundreds of thousands to millions of legally cast votes on the basis of a youtube video from EagleFreedomJesusPatriot01, therefore their history of enabling Republican voter suppression and tilting the scales in their favor doesn't count!" -Shofercia logic

Please note that when I parodied your logic, I didn't actually need to come up with utter bullshit like a random YouTube video, which I never claimed was the basis for anything. You're setting up strawmen and knocking them down.

Thank you for the reminder that when they could do it with a veneer of respectability and legal justification, they did in fact install a Republican President who had lost the vote, but it's a bit counterproductive to your argument.

This is now the third argument that I've made, that you've completely misunderstood, in a row. Nowhere did I claim that Bush v Gore had a veneer of respectability, you just made that up, Myrensis, to buttress your point. Like you made up the YouTube video. Like you pretended that I was claiming that the entire Republican Party was X, when my argument was the exact opposite. This isn't a debate for you, this is verbal combat...

I typically don't read state laws that haven't been passed, unless we're talking about economic laws affecting California, and I prefer not to comment on laws that I don't read, which for you is also somehow nefarious. Although hey, you probably love MSNBC, so I can see how they'd be offended by it, and quite frankly, it's not that surprising when you're defending Cheney, not because you agree with any of her policies, but because she's mean to the really, really, really bad man, and "Orange Man Bad" seems to trump all logic and common sense when it comes to certain responses.

Yeah, no, pointing out that Cheney was removed from her leadership position because she kept provoking Trump and his cult by suggesting that the GOP should acknowledge basic reality is not 'defending' her. I am in fact generally irritated by this habit of certain democrats and liberals of lionizing Republicans who spent their entire careers feeding their base the kool-aid that paved the way for Trump just because they've gotten cold feet now that he is the one with the hand on the leash.

Though I can't help but notice you seem to have casually avoided answering the question of why Cheney's warmongering ways suddenly became such an urgent issue in May (coincidentally after she once again publicly criticized Trump and his lies about the election) that she was removed in 15 minutes, but wasn't a problem in February when they first tried to oust her for...publicly criticizing Trump and his lies about the election.

You do realize that people can be removed from positions of leadership for numerous reasons, right? Or does the "Orange Man Bad" argument shine so bright, that everything else is blinded? You clearly only want to talk about the Trump Faction in the Republican Party, ignoring the Populists and the Libertarians. As I've explained to you, repeatedly, the Trump Faction was allowed to remove Cheney because her policies did not coincide with the other, remaining factions within the Republican Party.

When one faction attacks you, and no factions defend you, then you get removed from leadership, since one is greater than zero, and my guess is that she'll probably get successfully primaried. I doubt that Collins will get successfully primaried, even there might be a challenge, but my guess is that Cheney's primary challenger will easily outraise Collins' primary challenger. Going back to the topic at hand, it seems that all Democrats see when it comes to Republicans is the Trump Faction. And that explains a lot of the posts in this thread about the five seceding counties, where the Democrats view the state changers not as farmers and loggers just trying to create a better life for their kids, but as Bundy Insurrectionists.

The problem is that fairly soon, if not already, that's how the Republicans will view the Democrats, as Clintonite Liars, Obama Promise-Breakers, Biden Corruptionists, and Harris Jailers. And therein lies the rub, of how America becomes more and more divided, since each political party will only see the absolute worse of the other party, as you've so aptly demonstrated. And that's bad.

Thankfully, most Americans aren't buying that cool aid, and are demanding a third party instead: https://news.gallup.com/poll/329639/sup ... point.aspx

[Shofercia]

I am not being snarky, but what I just typed (and what I have been typing in previous posts) is the solution. Also that is what representative means (conversely stated, obviously). It is also exercising lawful self-determination according to the principles of Federalism upon which the United States, the former Oregon Country, and the current States involved were formed as a basis of their law.

You may live in a State wherein the Counties are not Chartered but are under direct administration of the State Legislature. This is not the case for the Counties of the former Oregon Country (sans British Columbia). They are chartered with their own delegated powers distinct from State operation which the Legislature may supervise with the consent of the governed within those counties.

Letting the process play out just as it did for other reorganization such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and what created the current States of Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and West Virginia is nothing new. They may succeed or they may fail, but they have the right to try. The difference is they are not seeking their own Statehood, but transference into a border State within the former Oregon Country.

i dont follow. Are you suggesting that laws passed in the capital don't apply to them without their express consent? That's not how a republic works.

Did laws passed in Richmond apply to Wheeling in the mid 1860s?

[Azalfia]

I really can't say much because I am a supporter of self determination, but this is..uhhh..concerning. If they were border countries maybe, but we really gonna create exclave-enclaves?

[San Lumen]

i dont follow. Are you suggesting that laws passed in the capital don't apply to them without their express consent? That's not how a republic works.

Did laws passed in Richmond apply to Wheeling in the mid 1860s?

Not the same.

[Great Brytain and Ireland]

It’s funny how some seemingly staunch American Leftists are so triggered by some rural yokels voting to join a neighbouring state at their own volition. What happened to freedom and letting people do what they want?

[Vassenor]

It’s funny how some seemingly staunch American Leftists are so triggered by some rural yokels voting to join a neighbouring state at their own volition. What happened to freedom and letting people do what they want?

I find it funny how quickly the American Right bounces from FUCK YOUR FEELINGS and IF YOU DONT LIKE IT LEAVE to demanding that they be coddled by the government.