Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Galloism]

I have been trying to find how they are oppressed.

I believe I've explained to you at least twice now how the legislature is doing an end-run around the constitution of Oregon with the explicit purpose of denying them the right to vote on new legislation they are guaranteed under the state constitution.

Denying people the right to vote as guaranteed under the constitution is a pretty well accepted criteria for oppression.

[San Lumen]

I have been trying to find how they are oppressed.

I believe I've explained to you at least twice now how the legislature is doing an end-run around the constitution of Oregon with the explicit purpose of denying them the right to vote on new legislation they are guaranteed under the state constitution.

Denying people the right to vote as guaranteed under the constitution is a pretty well accepted criteria for oppression.

North Carolina has done the same thing to cities there. You don’t see them whining and trying to leave the state.

[The Two Jerseys]

I believe I've explained to you at least twice now how the legislature is doing an end-run around the constitution of Oregon with the explicit purpose of denying them the right to vote on new legislation they are guaranteed under the state constitution.

Denying people the right to vote as guaranteed under the constitution is a pretty well accepted criteria for oppression.

North Carolina has done the same thing to cities there. You don’t see them whining and trying to leave the state.

You got a source for that?

[Greater Miami Shores]

North Carolina has done the same thing to cities there. You don’t see them whining and trying to leave the state.

You got a source for that?

I take San Lumen's word for it, as I always say in Politics everything works ways, but the leftists never agree with me when I stated it, lol.

[The Black Forrest]

I have been trying to find how they are oppressed.

I believe I've explained to you at least twice now how the legislature is doing an end-run around the constitution of Oregon with the explicit purpose of denying them the right to vote on new legislation they are guaranteed under the state constitution.

Denying people the right to vote as guaranteed under the constitution is a pretty well accepted criteria for oppression.

Did you? I either missed it or forgot to read it. Let me see if I can find it.

[The Black Forrest]

I believe I've explained to you at least twice now how the legislature is doing an end-run around the constitution of Oregon with the explicit purpose of denying them the right to vote on new legislation they are guaranteed under the state constitution.

Denying people the right to vote as guaranteed under the constitution is a pretty well accepted criteria for oppression.

Did you? I either missed it or forgot to read it. Let me see if I can find it.

Was it this?

No.

What really got this standoff going was an emergency cap and trade bill (cap and trade is a form of carbon emissions taxation, basically). It was an emergency because the Oregon Constitution requires most new legislation passed by the legislature to then be placed on the ballot to be voted on by the people. The exception - emergencies. The legislature specifically crafted the bill as an emergency with the goal of denying the people of Oregon their traditional right to vote on the new legislation. This led to the republicans fleeing the legislature to deny the democrats quorum and passing a bill crafted in such a fashion to deny Oregonians their traditional rights under the Constitution of Oregon.

I'm going off memory here, but that was basically the thrust of it.


———————————————————————————-

It seems odd to split a state over one action. Did they sue it in the courts? If it’s a violation after all…..

Even then I would have to see the story in detail.

[The Black Forrest]

I did find these articles:

https://www.opb.org/news/article/cap-an ... mendments/

https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon ... bill-1530/

https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate ... d1620.html

https://www.streetroots.org/news/2021/0 ... ate-change

So what are the issues? There is conspiracy talk and it’s going to hurt and it won’t do anything. Not really much on details. Valid arguments would be why it’s not going to do anything because…..

They have been trying to do something since 1989……

[Punished UMN]

It's "Democratic Centralism" for you if needed.

that is not what UMN is talking about

It's not silly conceptually. If the political center is able to stop any effort to leave it on the part of a group which is a majority in some provinces, then how is it not dictatorship (in the sense of authority)?

So now in addition to "Orwellian is when someone is mean to you and Kafkaesque is when someone is mean to you and you have to fill out a form," we have "dictatorship is when you ask for something but the govt says no"? Can we maybe consider that these terms actually have substantive meaning that's being slowly evaporated by using them so loosely? The democratically elected governments of Oregon and Idaho (remember, Idaho doesn't fucking WANT them) declining to redraw county-level administrative boundaries is not tantamount to "dictatorship" in any meaningful sense of the word.

When you centralize power in this way, then authority does not arise from the popular will, it arises from the center and flows downward to the masses, which is fundamentally no different than in non-democratic states.

No, you've just redefined "the popular will" to only constitute the will of people in one part of the polity, without justifying why you're doing this. If there were linguistic, cultural, and ethnic differences, maybe you could make the case that they really are two different peoples, and one is denying the other their self-determination, but Oregon is homogenous enough that you can't really do that. The "popular will" in Oregon (and, again, also in Idaho) seems quite firmly aligned against this; it's just some politically aggrieved cranks pulling a stunt to get media attention.

There's plenty of places to bemoan the falsehood of the concept of popular sovereignty or whatever, but I don't think this is one of them. You're giving undue credibility to a small group of very silly people and an only-slightly-larger motley collection of their followers, whose reasons for "supporting" this stunt are probably as varied as the day is long.

No, I did in fact mean democratic centralism by dictatorship.

It's the majority in those counties, which are separate polities. "Oregon" is a social and legal construct, there isn't any essential reason why every community in the state needs to owe allegiance to the state except a paper written and signed in 1859. Once polities exist, they do not have to continue in their existing form in perpetuity.

It shouldn't matter what their reasons are, it is their communities, not those of the legislators in Salem. The idea that seems prevalent, that a paper was signed hundreds of years ago, therefore everyone is bound to its rules forever, is such a bizarre one. If they don't want to be in Oregon, or even the United States for that matter, why should people who don't even live there be able to stop them from seceding? Because of some legal abstractions drawn up before any living person was born to consent to it?

[Shofercia]

Why doesn’t Texas break apart then? Atlanta metro area should leave Georgia? Charlotte should leave North Carolina?

In a democracy you accept election results. You don’t throw a temper tantrum and succeed.

So Switzerland's not a democracy? Or, asked another way, why aren't you accepting the county election results? Also, Texas can break into five states.

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

Some people get to live under laws they prefer?

It seems like an overall increase in utility to me. If people want to vote to join a different state that's absolutely fine by me. Yes this includes Texas and Atlanta.

Move elsewhere instead of changing boundaries. Why doesn’t London and regions of the UK vote to leave?

Regions of the UK voted to leave. It was known as BREXIT. Scotland voted to stay. That was known as the Scottish Referendum.

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

The same thing that always happens when you set the precedent that separatism is permissible in some form? Again, we’re talking about the place where the Malheur Wildlife Refuge siege happened only a few years ago and this is being driven by some of the same people; it may start with separatism against Oregon but with the country in the state it’s in, it’s easy to see how that could spiral out of control. They join Idaho, counties in California and New York start trying to peel off, blue cities in red states start trying to break away, and boom, suddenly you have paramilitary mobilization on both sides across the country, demonstrations for or against various separatist sects— you think the checkpoint incident in Portland was bad? Wait till there’s checkpoints outside every major city in the country and street fighting in swing-y suburbs that both sides want to bring into their separatist fold.

People may not like everything about the current administrative boundaries, but we’ve made them work this far. No reason to let a bunch of disinformation-addled heavily-armed rednecks ruin an okay thing we’ve got going just because they’re mad that some gigantic logging companies can no longer decimate Oregon’s old-growth forests to *quite* the same extent or whatever. If they can’t live in a democratic society unless their side is winning, they’ve got the same problem as Lumen, frankly— worse, in fact, since they prefer a slate of policies which are explicitly anti-democratic, when you look away from their noble struggle for “self-determination.”

So then your argument is that state boundaries are sacrosanct. Next question: where's that enshrined in the US Constitution? I'm also not seeing massive changes happening with extreme speed, as it's a process. First, you need to establish a county or hold a Referendum in an established county. That's two years. Second it needs to be restructured and placed on a slow transition, which could be up to a decade. We're not talking about overnight changes.

Or, here's another interesting thing that politicians in Oregon can do: instead of representing their voters and their special interest groups, they can represent the entire state, and we wouldn't need these shifts of counties between the states.

[Shofercia]

You can't introduce Electoral College on a state level for the same reason that you cannot ban Electoral College on a national level - it'd be unconstitutional.

Note: Mississippi had a statewide electoral college until last election

You mean to tell me that Mississippi did something illegal? I'm shocked!

I believe I've explained to you at least twice now how the legislature is doing an end-run around the constitution of Oregon with the explicit purpose of denying them the right to vote on new legislation they are guaranteed under the state constitution.

Denying people the right to vote as guaranteed under the constitution is a pretty well accepted criteria for oppression.

North Carolina has done the same thing to cities there. You don’t see them whining and trying to leave the state.

"Oppression's ok as long as the other side does it!"

[The Black Forrest]

Why doesn’t Texas break apart then? Atlanta metro area should leave Georgia? Charlotte should leave North Carolina?

In a democracy you accept election results. You don’t throw a temper tantrum and succeed.

So Switzerland's not a democracy? Or, asked another way, why aren't you accepting the county election results? Also, Texas can break into five states.

Move elsewhere instead of changing boundaries. Why doesn’t London and regions of the UK vote to leave?

Regions of the UK voted to leave. It was known as BREXIT. Scotland voted to stay. That was known as the Scottish Referendum.

The same thing that always happens when you set the precedent that separatism is permissible in some form? Again, we’re talking about the place where the Malheur Wildlife Refuge siege happened only a few years ago and this is being driven by some of the same people; it may start with separatism against Oregon but with the country in the state it’s in, it’s easy to see how that could spiral out of control. They join Idaho, counties in California and New York start trying to peel off, blue cities in red states start trying to break away, and boom, suddenly you have paramilitary mobilization on both sides across the country, demonstrations for or against various separatist sects— you think the checkpoint incident in Portland was bad? Wait till there’s checkpoints outside every major city in the country and street fighting in swing-y suburbs that both sides want to bring into their separatist fold.

People may not like everything about the current administrative boundaries, but we’ve made them work this far. No reason to let a bunch of disinformation-addled heavily-armed rednecks ruin an okay thing we’ve got going just because they’re mad that some gigantic logging companies can no longer decimate Oregon’s old-growth forests to *quite* the same extent or whatever. If they can’t live in a democratic society unless their side is winning, they’ve got the same problem as Lumen, frankly— worse, in fact, since they prefer a slate of policies which are explicitly anti-democratic, when you look away from their noble struggle for “self-determination.”

So then your argument is that state boundaries are sacrosanct. Next question: where's that enshrined in the US Constitution? I'm also not seeing massive changes happening with extreme speed, as it's a process. First, you need to establish a county or hold a Referendum in an established county. That's two years. Second it needs to be restructured and placed on a slow transition, which could be up to a decade. We're not talking about overnight changes.

If it even get’s to that point. Most likely it will go down in flames.

Or, here's another interesting thing that politicians in Oregon can do: instead of representing their voters and their special interest groups, they can represent the entire state, and we wouldn't need these shifts of counties between the states.

Well? The majority of the people seemed to be concerned over global warming. The counties in question? Basically we ain’t having any of that. What do you do? Even now I would ask what the republicans have counter offered? My minimal looking basically shows “ah no!” as the response.

Even in their cap and trade plan it’s a roll out of a few years and retraining for those directly affected.

In a perfect world politicians should represent the people. The problem? When has that happened overall?

[San Lumen]

Why doesn’t Texas break apart then? Atlanta metro area should leave Georgia? Charlotte should leave North Carolina?

In a democracy you accept election results. You don’t throw a temper tantrum and succeed.

So Switzerland's not a democracy? Or, asked another way, why aren't you accepting the county election results? Also, Texas can break into five states.

Move elsewhere instead of changing boundaries. Why doesn’t London and regions of the UK vote to leave?

Regions of the UK voted to leave. It was known as BREXIT. Scotland voted to stay. That was known as the Scottish Referendum.

The same thing that always happens when you set the precedent that separatism is permissible in some form? Again, we’re talking about the place where the Malheur Wildlife Refuge siege happened only a few years ago and this is being driven by some of the same people; it may start with separatism against Oregon but with the country in the state it’s in, it’s easy to see how that could spiral out of control. They join Idaho, counties in California and New York start trying to peel off, blue cities in red states start trying to break away, and boom, suddenly you have paramilitary mobilization on both sides across the country, demonstrations for or against various separatist sects— you think the checkpoint incident in Portland was bad? Wait till there’s checkpoints outside every major city in the country and street fighting in swing-y suburbs that both sides want to bring into their separatist fold.

People may not like everything about the current administrative boundaries, but we’ve made them work this far. No reason to let a bunch of disinformation-addled heavily-armed rednecks ruin an okay thing we’ve got going just because they’re mad that some gigantic logging companies can no longer decimate Oregon’s old-growth forests to *quite* the same extent or whatever. If they can’t live in a democratic society unless their side is winning, they’ve got the same problem as Lumen, frankly— worse, in fact, since they prefer a slate of policies which are explicitly anti-democratic, when you look away from their noble struggle for “self-determination.”

So then your argument is that state boundaries are sacrosanct. Next question: where's that enshrined in the US Constitution? I'm also not seeing massive changes happening with extreme speed, as it's a process. First, you need to establish a county or hold a Referendum in an established county. That's two years. Second it needs to be restructured and placed on a slow transition, which could be up to a decade. We're not talking about overnight changes.

Or, here's another interesting thing that politicians in Oregon can do: instead of representing their voters and their special interest groups, they can represent the entire state, and we wouldn't need these shifts of counties between the states.

what does switzerland have to do with it?

The legislature represents the state and individual legislator represents his or her district. Someone elected from Portland doesn't represent the farmer in rural Oregon. That's not how representative democracy works.

[Punished UMN]

So Switzerland's not a democracy? Or, asked another way, why aren't you accepting the county election results? Also, Texas can break into five states.




Regions of the UK voted to leave. It was known as BREXIT. Scotland voted to stay. That was known as the Scottish Referendum.




So then your argument is that state boundaries are sacrosanct. Next question: where's that enshrined in the US Constitution? I'm also not seeing massive changes happening with extreme speed, as it's a process. First, you need to establish a county or hold a Referendum in an established county. That's two years. Second it needs to be restructured and placed on a slow transition, which could be up to a decade. We're not talking about overnight changes.

Or, here's another interesting thing that politicians in Oregon can do: instead of representing their voters and their special interest groups, they can represent the entire state, and we wouldn't need these shifts of counties between the states.

what does switzerland have to do with it?

The legislature represents the state and individual legislator represents his or her district. Someone elected from Portland doesn't represent the farmer in rural Oregon. That's not how representative democracy works.

What does "the state" mean to you?

[Shofercia]

So Switzerland's not a democracy? Or, asked another way, why aren't you accepting the county election results? Also, Texas can break into five states.




Regions of the UK voted to leave. It was known as BREXIT. Scotland voted to stay. That was known as the Scottish Referendum.




So then your argument is that state boundaries are sacrosanct. Next question: where's that enshrined in the US Constitution? I'm also not seeing massive changes happening with extreme speed, as it's a process. First, you need to establish a county or hold a Referendum in an established county. That's two years. Second it needs to be restructured and placed on a slow transition, which could be up to a decade. We're not talking about overnight changes.

If it even get’s to that point. Most likely it will go down in flames.

Or, here's another interesting thing that politicians in Oregon can do: instead of representing their voters and their special interest groups, they can represent the entire state, and we wouldn't need these shifts of counties between the states.

Well? The majority of the people seemed to be concerned over global warming. The counties in question? Basically we ain’t having any of that. What do you do? Even now I would ask what the republicans have counter offered? My minimal looking basically shows “ah no!” as the response.

Even in their cap and trade plan it’s a roll out of a few years and retraining for those directly affected.

In a perfect world politicians should represent the people. The problem? When has that happened overall?

This entire thread's theoretical, with patches of realism where the more experienced posters can insert it, so I agree with you in that it could all go down in flames; or it might. That's the fun of the thread.

If we're talking about solving Global Warming, why not come up with innovative approaches where the burden's equally distributed? When you solve Global Warming by placing the plurality of the burden on a tiny segment of the population, the population's going to object.

As for politicians representing the people, you're right in that it hasn't happened nearly enough, and because that hasn't happened, more and more people want power to be localized.

[Shofercia]

So Switzerland's not a democracy? Or, asked another way, why aren't you accepting the county election results? Also, Texas can break into five states.




Regions of the UK voted to leave. It was known as BREXIT. Scotland voted to stay. That was known as the Scottish Referendum.




So then your argument is that state boundaries are sacrosanct. Next question: where's that enshrined in the US Constitution? I'm also not seeing massive changes happening with extreme speed, as it's a process. First, you need to establish a county or hold a Referendum in an established county. That's two years. Second it needs to be restructured and placed on a slow transition, which could be up to a decade. We're not talking about overnight changes.

Or, here's another interesting thing that politicians in Oregon can do: instead of representing their voters and their special interest groups, they can represent the entire state, and we wouldn't need these shifts of counties between the states.

what does switzerland have to do with it?

The legislature represents the state and individual legislator represents his or her district. Someone elected from Portland doesn't represent the farmer in rural Oregon. That's not how representative democracy works.

You said that referendums on county secession are invalid in a democracy, and yet they happen in Switzerland. So I'm asking you, is Switzerland a democracy? Also, I'm sure that you've heard of the following phrase: "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!"

So let's look at your proposal. First, you've admitted that the rural communities do NOT have enough votes to win, and are perpetually losing. Second, you just stated that the job of the victors is to represent their district, rather than the state as a whole. As a result, this ensures that the folks wanting to secede from Oregon have no real representation in government, and yet, they're taxed. You can't have it both ways Lumen, this is America.

[San Lumen]

what does switzerland have to do with it?

The legislature represents the state and individual legislator represents his or her district. Someone elected from Portland doesn't represent the farmer in rural Oregon. That's not how representative democracy works.

You said that referendums on county secession are invalid in a democracy, and yet they happen in Switzerland. So I'm asking you, is Switzerland a democracy? Also, I'm sure that you've heard of the following phrase: "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!"

So let's look at your proposal. First, you've admitted that the rural communities do NOT have enough votes to win, and are perpetually losing. Second, you just stated that the job of the victors is to represent their district, rather than the state as a whole. As a result, this ensures that the folks wanting to secede from Oregon have no real representation in government, and yet, they're taxed. You can't have it both ways Lumen, this is America.

They have representatives from their own counties and towns. That's the whole point of districts.

[Galloism]

I believe I've explained to you at least twice now how the legislature is doing an end-run around the constitution of Oregon with the explicit purpose of denying them the right to vote on new legislation they are guaranteed under the state constitution.

Denying people the right to vote as guaranteed under the constitution is a pretty well accepted criteria for oppression.

North Carolina has done the same thing to cities there. You don’t see them whining and trying to leave the state.

That very well may be, but "but bobby did it too" didn't work in kindergarten, and it doesn't really work now.

[Galloism]

Did you? I either missed it or forgot to read it. Let me see if I can find it.

Was it this?

No.

What really got this standoff going was an emergency cap and trade bill (cap and trade is a form of carbon emissions taxation, basically). It was an emergency because the Oregon Constitution requires most new legislation passed by the legislature to then be placed on the ballot to be voted on by the people. The exception - emergencies. The legislature specifically crafted the bill as an emergency with the goal of denying the people of Oregon their traditional right to vote on the new legislation. This led to the republicans fleeing the legislature to deny the democrats quorum and passing a bill crafted in such a fashion to deny Oregonians their traditional rights under the Constitution of Oregon.

I'm going off memory here, but that was basically the thrust of it.


———————————————————————————-

It seems odd to split a state over one action. Did they sue it in the courts? If it’s a violation after all…..

Even then I would have to see the story in detail.

Oh the state splitting thing is stupid. I agree on that.

It didn't make it to the courts because the standoff worked - they ground the state to a halt until the democrats in the legislature changed their tune on that particular bill (deciding that they didn't have the votes to pass it anymore - turns out the standoff worked to make at least some legislators question whether they should end run the constitution like that).

But there is a very real grievance here that led to the weird legislative standoff in Oregon that keeps persisting.

[Panslavicland]

While I sympathize, I think this would only result in retaliatory measures where liberal areas in conservative states do the same thing and as a result nothing is solved in the end. A better solution would be to introduce the electoral college to statewide elections, so that rural counties gain the same level of increased influence that rural states now have in federal elections.

You can't introduce Electoral College on a state level for the same reason that you cannot ban Electoral College on a national level - it'd be unconstitutional.

Which article of the constitution would it break? The introduction of a state level electoral college that is, not banning it at a national level.

[San Lumen]

You can't introduce Electoral College on a state level for the same reason that you cannot ban Electoral College on a national level - it'd be unconstitutional.

Which article of the constitution would it break? The introduction of a state level electoral college that is, not banning it at a national level.

It would violate one man one vote. In many states an electoral college based on legislative districts or counties would be an effectively rigged election. A Republican would always win.

Mississippi had one until it was repealed last year due to its discriminatory nature. It was a relic of Jim Crow.

[Senkaku]

that is not what UMN is talking about


So now in addition to "Orwellian is when someone is mean to you and Kafkaesque is when someone is mean to you and you have to fill out a form," we have "dictatorship is when you ask for something but the govt says no"? Can we maybe consider that these terms actually have substantive meaning that's being slowly evaporated by using them so loosely? The democratically elected governments of Oregon and Idaho (remember, Idaho doesn't fucking WANT them) declining to redraw county-level administrative boundaries is not tantamount to "dictatorship" in any meaningful sense of the word.

No, you've just redefined "the popular will" to only constitute the will of people in one part of the polity, without justifying why you're doing this. If there were linguistic, cultural, and ethnic differences, maybe you could make the case that they really are two different peoples, and one is denying the other their self-determination, but Oregon is homogenous enough that you can't really do that. The "popular will" in Oregon (and, again, also in Idaho) seems quite firmly aligned against this; it's just some politically aggrieved cranks pulling a stunt to get media attention.

There's plenty of places to bemoan the falsehood of the concept of popular sovereignty or whatever, but I don't think this is one of them. You're giving undue credibility to a small group of very silly people and an only-slightly-larger motley collection of their followers, whose reasons for "supporting" this stunt are probably as varied as the day is long.

No, I did in fact mean democratic centralism by dictatorship.

You’re just saying “all democratic governance is democratic centralism” lmfao that’s fucking stupid, democratic centralism is a specific way to run a party not descriptive of the behavior of a polity as a whole at all

This is what I mean about redefining the meaning out of words— this is a “taxation is theft”-tier understanding of democratic politics

It's the majority in those counties, which are separate polities. "Oregon" is a social and legal construct, there isn't any essential reason why every community in the state needs to owe allegiance to the state except a paper written and signed in 1859. Once polities exist, they do not have to continue in their existing form in perpetuity.

The popular will is that citizens be given as much pomegranate juice as they want, for free. It’s the majority position in this room, which is a separate polity from the next apartment over. “New York” is just a social and legal construct, there’s no real reason why every community needs to owe it allegiance!

It shouldn't matter what their reasons are, it is their communities, not those of the legislators in Salem. The idea that seems prevalent, that a paper was signed hundreds of years ago, therefore everyone is bound to its rules forever, is such a bizarre one. If they don't want to be in Oregon, or even the United States for that matter, why should people who don't even live there be able to stop them from seceding? Because of some legal abstractions drawn up before any living person was born to consent to it?

Those “legal abstractions” have had real-world impact over the years to an extent I think you can safely say Oregon is more than a collective fantasy or complete abstraction. Yes, polities and their administrative boundaries can evolve, but the question in politics is always should they evolve (and how so), and that usually involves setting out the conditions or reasons in which the evolution you’re proposing would make sense. In this case, I don’t think “I don’t like Portland antifa and their cultural Marxist eco-socialism” is a good enough reason to form a separatist movement, and neither do the democratically elected legislatures of Oregon or Idaho. If these idiots can get some separatist candidates into the legislatures on either or both sides of the border to successfully advocate for their position, or run a successful guerrilla campaign, then they can join Idaho, and not before.

[Vassenor]

You can't introduce Electoral College on a state level for the same reason that you cannot ban Electoral College on a national level - it'd be unconstitutional.

Which article of the constitution would it break? The introduction of a state level electoral college that is, not banning it at a national level.

That still doesn't answer the question of why rural populations need disproportionately large influence.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Entertain this hypothetical, if you will: I have certain disagreements with the conservative political culture of the polity in which I reside. Therefore, exercising my right to self-determination, I am going to carve out the hundred or so square metres of my household as an independent state and legalise gay marriage here.

Is society better off if individuals such as myself possess and exercise the freedom to be governed only by polities we wish to be a part of?

If not, then why are we even taking seriously this ridiculous tantrum by a bunch of rural Oregonians who never learned to deal?

What the right to “self-determination” means in the end is nothing more than anarchy.

[The Lone Alliance]

Got a linky?

The event I’m referring to was that Republican walkout thing that happened about a year or two back. Though admittedly I can’t find anything directly saying that it’s one of the reasons, the fact that this happened not too long after makes me think that they’re related. Feel free to take it with a grain of salt, however.

People have told Black Forrest the above thing repeatedly.

Edited: And I see they finally revealed they did know what it was about all along.

[Senkaku]

If not, then why are we even taking seriously this ridiculous tantrum by a bunch of rural Oregonians who never learned to deal?

Because they serve as a useful canard for VSPs in the media and online who want us to see the leftist madness taking place in PDX as a reason to embrace a form of constituency-less centrism that will supposedly mollify the hicks aggrieved Rural-Americans enough that they won’t start bombing food trailers for another few years

What the right to “self-determination” means in the end is nothing more than anarchy.

Well that’s overstating the case but yes we should at least subject claims to be doing a self-determination to some critical scrutiny and see if they have any merit at all