Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Shofercia]

You do know that it's rather easy to look up the relevant laws passed on Google, right? You know you lost the argument, so you're engaging in two rather frowned upon tactics. First, you want me to waste my time teaching you how to do Google Searching 101, and something tells me that you probably grasp the basics. Second, you're picking on my avatar that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. When you're ready to debate the issues, let me know.

Also, would you care to show me where I said that all of them cannot afford to move? Oh right, you're just favoring the rich, the ones who can move, and throwing the poor, those who cannot, under the proverbial bus, which is a tad condescending to the poor. Just a tad.

The argument was carried by others pages ago, long before you chimed in. This whole thread has degenerated into nothing but a Trojan Horse for silly political walks. Additionally, I see you've brought out your usual circus act post posturing. Google 101, please. You said it, you prove it.
*lights match*
All your customary straw men are now burning brightly, which is far more than i can say for your oxygen starved argument.

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

[San Lumen]

The argument was carried by others pages ago, long before you chimed in. This whole thread has degenerated into nothing but a Trojan Horse for silly political walks. Additionally, I see you've brought out your usual circus act post posturing. Google 101, please. You said it, you prove it.
*lights match*
All your customary straw men are now burning brightly, which is far more than i can say for your oxygen starved argument.

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

Republicans in Portland are forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them either. Should they vote to form a separate municipal government?

[Shofercia]

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

Republicans in Portland are forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them either. Should they vote to form a separate municipal government?

Are they concentrated in a governable unit? Referenda Policies should be realistic. Is it realistic for a border county to switch states? Yep. Is what you're comparing it to realistic? I'm unsure, hence the inquiry.

[Narland]

Sorry this is so long. I culled it down from 7000 words to just under 2500. I tried to keep it relevant to Greater Idaho, and why some people support it. I laud the sentiment even though it is a longshot. I am posting this in 2 parts. Part 1.

Re: What you describe is the color blind society. We are a LONG LONG way from that.
I totally disagree. THere are pockets of racism, but they are the exception, not the rule. We are much more of a color blind society you might have been led to believe. Those of us Americans who fought to abolish slavery despite it being a nearl universal timeless institution of mankind (such as my grandfather's grandfather's generation had the unenviable taske of rising up against father-son, brother-brother, and , fought to enact Ask those in their 60s and older who have fought for Civil Rights in the 50s and 60s against the bigotry held states and cities, and the progress that has been made. The outlandish lies of the hate-mongers and race-baiters are also demonstrably false. But I do not think Neomarxists care about truth and falsehood. They care about a narrative that will deliver the minds of the next generation over to the enslavement of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Hate everything, burn it to the ground, and magically a new man will rise up out ot the ashes what gives fully according to his abilities but never takes more than the least amount he needs. But of course that never happens – just gulags, death camps, killing fields, and over a hundred millions murdered (in the 20th Century alone) for a Utopia that never arrives.

As an actual socialist:

"Neomarxists"? I have never heard that term in my life. What even is a "neomarxist" according to you?

Oxford English Dictionary defines Neo-Marxism as: The forms of political philosophy which arise from the adaptation of Marxist thought to accommodate or confront modern issues such as the global economy, the capitalist welfare state, and the stability of liberal democracies.

Oxford Online Reference:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100228337
Oxford Reference Library (Dictionary of Sociology); A term loosely applied to any social theory or sociological analysis which draws on the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but amends or extends these, usually by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions—such as, for example, psychoanalysis (as in the case of critical theory), Weberian sociology (as in Erik Olin Wright's theory of contradictory class locations), or anarchism (as in the example of critical criminology).

Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism
Neo-Marxism is a Marxist school of thought encompassing 20th-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism (in the case of Jean-Paul Sartre).

My university textbook is old but still fairly relevant:
Gorman, Robert A. 1985, Biographical dictionary of neo-Marxism, Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press

“When reading Marx and examining the evolution of Marxism, one detects at least six distinct philosophical perspectives, each justifying potentially unique answers to the theoretical and practical questions good social theory asks. Contemporary Marxism encompasses a range of philosophies that includes materialism, idealism, empiricism, and experientialism, as well as those either rejecting the notion of objectivity altogether or inextricably attaching it to history. Each Marxian school adopts one philosophy, traces it in Marx, and plumbs its theoretical and practical consequences. Modem Marxism, therefore, hermeneutically rectifies Marx’s inconsistencies without muting his critique of capitalism or his revolutionary politics.”
pp. 5 and 6

also I add that I consider postmarxism a continuation of neomarxism without the presuppositon of modernism.

Just say what you really mean

That has never been a problem.

If it helps, like many right-leaning Conservatives, my meaning is what it is from a Theistic Objective Realist (and somewhat pragmatic) perspective derived from the Judeo-Christian Ethic (specifically an evangelical, orthodox and catholic Christianity). The English is informed by American heritage and culture that does not cross the Kantian divide nor the Hegelian misstep into the mindset of despair and helplessness required by Marxian thought for enforced Socialist reorganization of society. There is more to it than that, but I do not want to bore you with a 5000 word essay. Hopefully, you know some of us (this type of principled traditional American Conservatives) well enough as close acquaintances or even friends (perhaps a family member) to understand our vernacular and engage us amiably on a conversational level with all civil discourse due each other as Americans and fellow human beings. If not, I am happy to get to know you so we can share life experiences with each other and perchance gain some ground in common.

- "cultural Marxists" - and get the full exposition of your thinly-veiled far-right views out of the way.

You have me in stitches. We do not hide the fact that we are Liberty loving Americans that are about as far right as possible without falling into anarchy (Aristotlean sense), and never leaning left enough to desire authoritarian or totalitarian misfeasance of our public servants by any means (although sometimes it is shackled upon us by the political will of others). Our goal to extend the greatest extent of Liberty as the individual can exercise to the individual's greatest happiness in accords with our nature and Creator is not hidden at all. Not only do we think that duly constituted limited government promoting liberty and equality composed of self-governing mature adults who treat others as they treat themselves in the exercise of their God-given rights to live their lives unmolested by petty despotism is a great idea, we recommend it to everyone.

Secondly, the notion that the "left" as it is denoted in the United States wants anything close to a collectivized economy, whether undertaken in the Leninist (i.e., what you describe when you say "dictatorship of the proletariat"), Marxist (which, contrary to the textbook right-wing butchery of that or any terms contrary to your beliefs to the point of them losing all colloquial meaning, is a form of economy where control of the means of production is heavily de-centralized in favor of individual workers while government is democratic), or anarchist style, is completely laughable; at least 75% of the Democratic party's base are liberals, who are by definition, still capitalists. And even then, the other 25% are social democrats (i.e., proponents of what Norway is, and that nation has a mixed economy which is in no way collectivized).

There is no true left in the United States (i.e., a group of people who want a collectivized economy), and there never has been. The closest we ever came to a real leftist party having any quantifiable power or influence in the US government was when FDR implemented a slightly left-leaning system of social democracy. The Democrats/liberals in this country only look like leftists to its population because our entire national political spectrum exists almost exclusively to the right of the worldwide center; your bourgeois system of class oppression is far from being in any danger in this country.

Leftists (specifically the illiberal left) in the US may not meet your purity test, but as a nation founded on the notion of extreme liberty they are no less a threat to what Liberty remains. The Leftist (in the European sense) of the US still have as their end game a command economy, an entrenched regulatory state, confiscatory taxes, and social engineering on the rest of society in violation of human dignity and reason. The leftist ideology of the neomarxist variety pervades american academia, journalism, scholastics, social media, and entertainment media to such an extent that anyone who disagrees with their ideological order for any valid reason (or no reason at all) are castigated by whatever unfounded epitaph they can throw which may stick in order to silence any rational debate. Those of us who want to live our lives peaceably with others are not only unable to respectfully decline but we are punished for our perceived obstinacy of not acceding to their delusions. ... hence the concept of a Greater Idaho.

[Narland]

xSorry this is so long. I culled it down from 7000 words to just under 2500. I tried to keep it relevant to Greater Idaho, and why some people support it. I laud the sentiment even though it is a longshot. I am posting this in 2 parts. Part 2.

How, also, does your mind somehow equate the liberal/socdem goals of enshrining greater protections for labor into law so people don't have to work three minimum-wage jobs just so they won't starve, and ending the racist elements of our society which still remain (those cliche "well it used to be worse in the past" and "racism ended after 1965"-type arguments are complete bullshit; just because systemic racism isn't as severe as it was back then doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore), all the while remaining capitalist ,to "burning everything to the ground in order to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat filled with starving gulags"?

Lol @ my mind. The general answer is, because I (like most like-minded American Conservatives) do not worship the State, nor think that external governance (government) can magically enshrine anything good by default. Unless the state (lowercase s) is committed to beneficent indifference by covenant (Constitutional Common/Basic Law) to respect the self-governing society enough to only intervene in matters of fraud and force against another real human being, his community, his family, his neighbors, his person, or his stuff -- (actual crime), and adjudicate justice through constitutional due process (equality of law) that respects the rights in full of each and every individual, it will necessarily be unjust, overbearing, and destructive to the ends of good government.

Each generation must assert itself to keep its rights, privileges, and immunities intact while fighting against the evils, excesses, and wrongful indifference exacerbated by the human condition that leads to that generation falling into barbarism and savagery either through tyranny (too much external government) or anarchy (not enough self-government) People disciplined out of their immaturity and indolence to be productive members of society will find Liberty. Those who do not will find themselves in ever increasing despotism. For Americans, Europe wasn’t the answer, Europe was the problem. More government wasn’t the answer, more government has been the problem. Monarchy (rule by great leader), oligarchy (rule by special group), and democracy (rule by mobs) wasn’t the answer, they were the problem.

re: minimum wage. Minimum wage was created to keep the undesirables from lower classes from gaining employment and improving their lot in life. It still has that effect as it prices many menial tasks out of the labor market. It creates a greater if not insurmountable hurtle for those in entry level positions who just want to get a leg up. Anyone who says they want minimum wage jobs to help the poor are at best misguided and at worst ideologues with ulterior motives who do not care about the poor as much as getting their votes.

re: work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with part-time jobs as long as something it is used to get ahead. There is something wrong others who disdain people who do try to work several jobs to improve themselves. Some people are well suited to one job, some to several and most are well suited to self-employment when able to do so. What is important is using the opportunity as a foundation to better things in the growth and development of one’s self-governance and civic virtue. Once a skill or trade is learned, or a product or service produced, that person’s viability increases and higher wages are garnered. If that person can become his own means of productivity freed from the shackles derived from the entrenched machine apparatuses of the Corporatist plutocrat, Unionist oligarch, or Socialist bureaucrat that would lord over him and eat out his substance, so much the better. When government gets out of the way, people start to prosper. When government locks us down we become impoverished.

re: starving. In the United States (as long as we remain free) nobody starves. Even our poor are fat (not a good thing, but better than dying of rickets. scurvy, dysentery). If someone goes hungry for any substantial amount of time in the US it is because they do not know where the church outreach, food banks, indigent services, and welfare offices are (or something illegal/unlawful is going on). Socialism sucks at distribution, and free and open markets provide the best products with the most widespread distribution for the least cost.

re: bullshit. Here is where we probably not going to find common ground. As a self-proclaimed Socialist, you choose to believe what we (Objectivists) know to be Marxist lies, wherein I (and a great preponderance of us who live in the “Red”States) call BS on them. Not just on Marx, but all those who follow after trying to make the lies work at the expense of the rights of fellow human beings. Their religious fervor and zealotry displayed for an ontological and teleological Utopia that cannot be is nothing short of astounding.[/spoiler]

But I do hope we find some common ground: Human systems are manifold and dynamic. They either get better or worse, but never stay exactly the same. It has literally taken thousands of years to get to where we are as human civilizations, the good, the bad, and the ugly of each generation weaving a tapestry societal change. As such to improve takes concert across the generations.

To call the hard won improvement of our lot in life as Americans for over the last 400 years against the racism, prejudice, and bigotry “bullshit” is offensive. Each generation raises a crop of haters, racists and bigots. The question is what does each generation do to curtail them. Each generation of Americans have more or less done an adequate job of calling out its haters and after some struggle, put another nail in the coffin of bigotry and hatred. It is our heritage to do so as Americans.

The Reconstruction Amendments have been the Law of the Land since 1865. If you are an American, you follow them. If you do not you are unAmerican: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Every Civil Rights Act from 1857 to present has built upon and expended on this.

Are there haters, bigots, irrationally prejudiced people that crop up with each generation? Yes, yes there is.
Do they have a place as a part of the United States? No, no they do not.
Is Systemic Racism a tenet of US Federalism after 1865?. No, no it is not.
Was Jim Crow ever lawful? No, not it was not. But haters pushed it anyway.
Was it right to throw the full weight of the National Guard against the haters of US Constitutionalism to stop illegal segregation? Yes. Yes it was.
Are we right to push against the lies, hatred, and bigotry of neomarxisms such as CRT? Yes, Yes we are.

We are better off, and we are improving. It is not perfect, but nothing involving more than one human is.

And finally: not all leftism is Leninism. Learn about different schools of leftist thought before you write everyone who wants a collectivized economy (or anyone suggesting any kind of government interference in the economy or legal protections for workers whatsoever) off with meme-based caricatures of the USSR;

See above paragraph that starts: “Leftists (specifically the illiberal left) in the US” Yes, not all Leftism is Leninism but all Leftism beyond Classical Liberalism is illiberal, despotic, and ofttimes cruel.

if there is anyone who does not care about truth and falsehood, it's the American right.

I disagree. The American Right in general tries to call it as it sees it. We do get it wrong, but our epistemology allows us to self-correct. Truth isn’t a something we twist to conform to our narrative and then must double down, it is a thing to which our narrative (and lives) must conform.

Y'all are actively fighting against democracy.

Yes, yes we are. Each generation has to fighting against all forms of despotism against the mind of man, be that tyranny, oligarchy, or democracy.

[Dtn]

You sound like a Marxist

[New haven america]

The argument was carried by others pages ago, long before you chimed in. This whole thread has degenerated into nothing but a Trojan Horse for silly political walks. Additionally, I see you've brought out your usual circus act post posturing. Google 101, please. You said it, you prove it.
*lights match*
All your customary straw men are now burning brightly, which is far more than i can say for your oxygen starved argument.

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

Oregon doesn't have sales tax.

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

You sound like a Marxist

I'm not hearing that. Maybe a Harpo Marxist?

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

Oregon doesn't have sales tax.

Of course OR doesn't. Very good catch, NHA!
He who spews on about Google 101 to others should honestly check into it himself.

[Tobleste]

if there is anyone who does not care about truth and falsehood, it's the American right.

I disagree. The American Right in general tries to call it as it sees it. We do get it wrong, but our epistemology allows us to self-correct. Truth isn’t a something we twist to conform to our narrative and then must double down, it is a thing to which our narrative (and lives) must conform.

It absolutely is. Trump was the most obviously and willfully ignorant president in the democratic world (except maybe Bolsanairo). He's adored by the US right. It also relies on media outlets like Fox and YouTube personalities while deeming the vast majority of journalism, academia and science to be biased. The US right has reached an epistemological crisis which has left it in a situation where it is incapable of accepting election results it dislikes.

It's why the vast majority of educated and young people are turning away from it while it relies on those who get their beliefs from millenia old religions or Internet conspiracies.

[The Black Forrest]

The argument was carried by others pages ago, long before you chimed in. This whole thread has degenerated into nothing but a Trojan Horse for silly political walks. Additionally, I see you've brought out your usual circus act post posturing. Google 101, please. You said it, you prove it.
*lights match*
All your customary straw men are now burning brightly, which is far more than i can say for your oxygen starved argument.

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

The sales tax was mentioned already….

I am curious as to how they are not being represented. What laws are needed to represent their needs? How are they ignored?

[Tobleste]

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

The sales tax was mentioned already….

I am curious as to how they are not being represented. What laws are needed to represent their needs? How are they ignored?

I'm assuming it's because they don't have the laws they want. Meaning that blue states should secede the next time there's a Republican in the white House.

[Shofercia]

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

Insert "Democrats" when Republicans are in power, and vice versa, and it's the same argument only more obviously silly.

Black Americans shouldn't have to pay taxes, because their interests are not represented by the majority (white/hispanic).

The only way it makes sense is by the false homogeneity of interest: that people living in the same county as each other are politically a bloc. And the minority of them who DON'T want to change states (or possibly a majority, considering anyone who didn't vote in a referendum is bound indefinitely into the future, to the wishes of those who did)? Maybe you'll allow them to opt out of paying taxes? I didn't think so.

"No taxation without representation" is all very well, but do you honestly think the American Revolution would never have happened if the British Parliament had offered all American colonial (men) a right to vote in London? How about after the Representatives of the American Counties had tried and failed to change the tax rates Britain imposed on imports?

Nah. It would have been "No taxation without a free trade zone, God Save the King" next.

I don't recall mentioning any political party in that argument. Let's check in with the actual argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it income taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states.

Do you see political parties mentioned anywhere? If you're going to use template argument bullshit, at least check to see if actually rebuts anything. As for the rest that gobbledygook, I'll just point out that the claim that you're bound forever by a Referendum Vote is extraordinarily ignorant, because you can always have a Referendum to repeal a Referendum. So no, you're not going to be bound for it for ever and ever and ever.

Ah yes, the famed tactic of pretending to attack the argument, but actually attempting to dance around it and falling on the proverbial face. How very cute. Let me rephrase the argument:

The farmers and loggers pay taxes, be it sales taxes, property taxes, etc, to the government of Oregon. However, as even Lumen admitted, they don't have the manpower peoplepower to elect representatives that would be able to pass laws to represent their needs. As thus, they're forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't represent them, so they opted to switch states. That's the actual argument, feel free to dance around it and project wildly.

Oregon doesn't have sales tax.

Fair point, but Oregon has quite a very harsh income tax. If you make over $2,315 in Oregon, you pay income tax. So while you are correct about sales tax, my main point still stands.

Oregon doesn't have sales tax.

Of course OR doesn't. Very good catch, NHA!
He who spews on about Google 101 to others should honestly check into it himself.

It took me all of 4 minutes to rebut your attempt at an argument, and then you ran away. Now you're back, saying "great job, you destroyed a minor point of the argument, Google 101" while failing to comprehend that the main point of the argument still stands.

As more and more people realize that we can work from home and work from states with a beneficial tax structure, or, dare I say, other countries, those who think that "no taxation without representation" is a dinosaur argument are about to be introduced to basic fiscal politics. The effects will be quite hilarious.

The sales tax was mentioned already….

I am curious as to how they are not being represented. What laws are needed to represent their needs? How are they ignored?

I'm assuming it's because they don't have the laws they want. Meaning that blue states should secede the next time there's a Republican in the white House.

We're talking about counties voting to move in between states within the same country; no one is talking about secession. As for their needs not being met, they lack the votes to elect politicians who would cater to their needs and the other side refuses to compromise when it comes to issues of regulation and taxation.

[Senkaku]

https://www.ijpr.org/environment-energy ... -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

[Shofercia]

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

How the fuck is Ammon Bundy not in jail? Is stealing no longer a crime?

[Senkaku]

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

How the fuck is Ammon Bundy not in jail? Is stealing no longer a crime?

I'm not exactly clear on how he walked away from Malheur a free man, tbh. Maybe the feds just decided it would be too much trouble to try and snatch him, not wanting to deal with all the militia types who would be on their asses if they tried?

[Shofercia]

How the fuck is Ammon Bundy not in jail? Is stealing no longer a crime?

I'm not exactly clear on how he walked away from Malheur a free man, tbh. Maybe the feds just decided it would be too much trouble to try and snatch him, not wanting to deal with all the militia types who would be on their asses if they tried?

True, but why not arrest him for conspiracy to commit theft after he's alone and vulnerable? The theft was rather blatant and they even bragged about it. Stealing from government land still counts as stealing the last time I checked.

[The Black Forrest]

[

We're talking about counties voting to move in between states within the same country; no one is talking about secession. As for their needs not being met, they lack the votes to elect politicians who would cater to their needs and the other side refuses to compromise when it comes to issues of regulation and taxation.

Regulation and taxation? As in the green power efforts?

[Tobleste]

I'm assuming it's because they don't have the laws they want. Meaning that blue states should secede the next time there's a Republican in the white House.

We're talking about counties voting to move in between states within the same country; no one is talking about secession. As for their needs not being met, they lack the votes to elect politicians who would cater to their needs and the other side refuses to compromise when it comes to issues of regulation and taxation.

It is seccession. Just from one state rather than one country. I don't see how the same principle doesn't apply. Canada is more liberal than America. If Republicans regain Congress, would the North East and West of America be allowed to join Canada?

Honestly looking at American politics, lack of compromise is not something I associate with Democrats. Biden ran a whole campaign on the back of working with Republicans. Repiblican extremism doesn't justify redrawing borders.

[Ors Might]

We're talking about counties voting to move in between states within the same country; no one is talking about secession. As for their needs not being met, they lack the votes to elect politicians who would cater to their needs and the other side refuses to compromise when it comes to issues of regulation and taxation.

It is seccession. Just from one state rather than one country. I don't see how the same principle doesn't apply. Canada is more liberal than America. If Republicans regain Congress, would the North East and West of America be allowed to join Canada?

Honestly looking at American politics, lack of compromise is not something I associate with Democrats. Biden ran a whole campaign on the back of working with Republicans. Repiblican extremism doesn't justify redrawing borders.

You see no difference between parts of one country joining an entirely different country and a few counties deciding they want to be part of a different state? What, do you think of this as Texas 2.0?

[Myrensis]

We're talking about counties voting to move in between states within the same country; no one is talking about secession. As for their needs not being met, they lack the votes to elect politicians who would cater to their needs and the other side refuses to compromise when it comes to issues of regulation and taxation.

It is seccession. Just from one state rather than one country. I don't see how the same principle doesn't apply. Canada is more liberal than America. If Republicans regain Congress, would the North East and West of America be allowed to join Canada?

Honestly looking at American politics, lack of compromise is not something I associate with Democrats. Biden ran a whole campaign on the back of working with Republicans. Repiblican extremism doesn't justify redrawing borders.

You're forgetting the two fundamental pillars on which absolutely all conservative thought and action are based: An all-consuming sense of entitlement, and an equally omnipresent persecution complex resulting from any failure to have that entitlement met.

You're dealing with people who decided that the only logical next step after a black President was white genocide, and who latched onto Donald Trump as the man Jesus sent to save them from it.

[Ors Might]

It is seccession. Just from one state rather than one country. I don't see how the same principle doesn't apply. Canada is more liberal than America. If Republicans regain Congress, would the North East and West of America be allowed to join Canada?

Honestly looking at American politics, lack of compromise is not something I associate with Democrats. Biden ran a whole campaign on the back of working with Republicans. Repiblican extremism doesn't justify redrawing borders.

You're forgetting the two fundamental pillars on which absolutely all conservative thought and action are based: An all-consuming sense of entitlement, and an equally omnipresent persecution complex resulting from any failure to have that entitlement met.

You're dealing with people who decided that the only logical next step after a black President was white genocide, and who latched onto Donald Trump as the man Jesus sent to save them from it.

I don’t think Shoefercia has ever made any claims of white genocide or that Trump was sent by God.

[Senkaku]

I'm not exactly clear on how he walked away from Malheur a free man, tbh. Maybe the feds just decided it would be too much trouble to try and snatch him, not wanting to deal with all the militia types who would be on their asses if they tried?

True, but why not arrest him for conspiracy to commit theft after he's alone and vulnerable? The theft was rather blatant and they even bragged about it. Stealing from government land still counts as stealing the last time I checked.

Your guess is as good as mine. :/ But anyways, the point is, he's now preparing to seize strategic infrastructure with the goal of totally wrecking the already-strained Klamath River ecosystem and the whole area's water supply, because apparently in addition to public land and "freedom" from the democratic decisionmaking of their fellow citizens' representatives, Oregon's right-wing nutjobs think they're entitled to to the state's water in the middle of the worst drought in decades.

Unfortunately, the secession thing can't be taken on its own, you have to take it in the context of the absolute insanity that the Oregonian far-right has been unleashing across the state for the past several years (Malheur, the convoys into Portland, now this mini-water war, etc.). It's great to support the principle of self-determination in a vacuum or whatever, but take a look at where Oregon is going and who the people behind this allegedly principled, democratic movement are.

[Tobleste]

It is seccession. Just from one state rather than one country. I don't see how the same principle doesn't apply. Canada is more liberal than America. If Republicans regain Congress, would the North East and West of America be allowed to join Canada?

Honestly looking at American politics, lack of compromise is not something I associate with Democrats. Biden ran a whole campaign on the back of working with Republicans. Repiblican extremism doesn't justify redrawing borders.

You see no difference between parts of one country joining an entirely different country and a few counties deciding they want to be part of a different state? What, do you think of this as Texas 2.0?

The basic premise is the same. We're being outvoted. Let's go somewhere else.

[Narland]

I'm not exactly clear on how he walked away from Malheur a free man, tbh. Maybe the feds just decided it would be too much trouble to try and snatch him, not wanting to deal with all the militia types who would be on their asses if they tried?

True, but why not arrest him for conspiracy to commit theft after he's alone and vulnerable? The theft was rather blatant and they even bragged about it. Stealing from government land still counts as stealing the last time I checked.

A federal judge dismissed all charges against the Bundys because prosecutors willfully withheld exculpatory evidence, acted in bad faith tantamount to criminal malfeasance.