Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Salus Maior]

That was badly written. It was supposed to be “when you get the cons”



Hey if you don’t have an argument then you attack the person.


The reality is these counties existed before these people purchased the land. There are NO absolute rights to land.

It’s not like these people have only one chance to own land.

It was more then that.

If they had genuine grievances. I would love to see them.

Who cares what the cons say? We're working on a principle here, not kindergarten politics. Although I understand the latter is how we operate these days.

You don't actually have an argument aside from "I don't like their reasons". With that in mind, it's perfectly valid to point out your opinion really doesn't matter when it comes to arguing the democratic principle. The will of the people either matters or it doesn't.

You don't actually know how these people would end up after moving from their land. And besides, it's more than just deeds to land we're working with here. They've legally expressed their will to cede from Oregon in democratic institutions in their localities. These are townships we're talking about, multiple townships.

Again, what you consider "genuine grievances" doesn't really matter.

[The Black Forrest]

That was badly written. It was supposed to be “when you get the cons”

That makes your continued use of that argument somehow even more nonsensical. How about I get "the cons" to stop hypothetically using this argument when you stop

Welcome to modern America. One side will stop when the other side stops.

[Punished UMN]

? When have I ever suggested people move as a solution? That's completely against what I believe politically. And no, I don't identify as a Conservative (at least so far as it's identified with Republican politics).

That was badly written. It was supposed to be “when you get the cons”

A valid reason according to who? Old timers wasting time on internet boards like yourself? That's not exactly what I'd call a authoritative source.

Hey if you don’t have an argument then you attack the person.

The state is just a legal construct. Who cares what it thinks? We're talking about reality here; that being the will of the people who live in these counties who have actual lives and have made a real choice.

The reality is these counties existed before these people purchased the land. There are NO absolute rights to land.

It’s not like these people have only one chance to own land.

America barely had any reason to cede from Britain. The Representation issue was pretty bad, but it wasn't worth becoming terrorists over considering that the only ill effect they had from it was paying a pittance of a tax on tea.

It was more then that.

If they had genuine grievances. I would love to see them.

Where'd Oregon get the land?

[Salus Maior]

That's borderline ethnic cleansing.

Alright no.

Is it stupid? Yes.
But its not ethnic cleansing unless they are forced to leave.

That's why I said borderline.

And you could argue that it's coercion by denying democratic/representative processes.

[Salus Maior]

That makes your continued use of that argument somehow even more nonsensical. How about I get "the cons" to stop hypothetically using this argument when you stop

Welcome to modern America. One side will stop when the other side stops.

And you're certainly proving to not rise above that. Good on you.

[Proctopeo]

It's been said countless times by now, but moving ain't that fucking easy. It's been said so many times that you should be acutely aware of that fact,

You also keep acting as if motivation is remotely important.

Its fascinating when one side says “if you don’t like it, move” and when they are told the same. “This isn’t right”

Show me where this "side" has said that, and how it actually connects to either us or the people in these counties.

Oh and nobody ever suggested moving wasn’t easy….well you did.

Where? It's mostly been you and San Lumen suggesting that it is, by demanding they "just move".

Nobody's rights are trampled upon by someone wanting their own land to be part of a different polity; this would have literally no impact on the lives of someone in Portland.

Ok. How are their rights being trampled on by Portland?

I feel like you've gotten answers to this question more than once.

You're using a shit argument because... you're assuming people here are associated with other people that you think have used this argument for other circumstances??? I can't tell if this is ridiculous, or just outright bad faith.

Then by all means list out their fucking greviances.

This is completely unrelated to the part of my post you're replying to. Did you misplace it?

That makes your continued use of that argument somehow even more nonsensical. How about I get "the cons" to stop hypothetically using this argument when you stop

Welcome to modern America. One side will stop when the other side stops.

Participating in the hyperpartisan nonsense because "that's how it is" doesn't make it good to do so.

[The Black Forrest]

That was badly written. It was supposed to be “when you get the cons”



Hey if you don’t have an argument then you attack the person.


The reality is these counties existed before these people purchased the land. There are NO absolute rights to land.

It’s not like these people have only one chance to own land.

It was more then that.

If they had genuine grievances. I would love to see them.

Who cares what the cons say? We're working on a principle here, not kindergarten politics. Although I understand the latter is how we operate these days.

You don't actually have an argument aside from "I don't like their reasons". With that in mind, it's perfectly valid to point out your opinion really doesn't matter when it comes to arguing the democratic principle. The will of the people either matters or it doesn't.

You don't actually know how these people would end up after moving from their land. And besides, it's more than just deeds to land we're working with here. They've legally expressed their will to cede from Oregon in democratic institutions in their localities. These are townships we're talking about, multiple townships.

Again, what you consider "genuine grievances" doesn't really matter.

Fascinating. I don’t have an argument because “I don’t like their reasons.”. And yet they have an arguement because they don’t like the reasons of the libs.

My opinion doesn’t matter and yet yours does?

I guess we really don’t have much more to say.

[San Lumen]

Alright no.

Is it stupid? Yes.
But its not ethnic cleansing unless they are forced to leave.

I wouldn't call it "ethnic cleansing", but there's a similar vibe. It's denying people actual representation unless they move elsewhere.

Did they vote for a representative in the state legislature in the last election? The answer is yes therefore they have representation.

[Salus Maior]

Who cares what the cons say? We're working on a principle here, not kindergarten politics. Although I understand the latter is how we operate these days.

You don't actually have an argument aside from "I don't like their reasons". With that in mind, it's perfectly valid to point out your opinion really doesn't matter when it comes to arguing the democratic principle. The will of the people either matters or it doesn't.

You don't actually know how these people would end up after moving from their land. And besides, it's more than just deeds to land we're working with here. They've legally expressed their will to cede from Oregon in democratic institutions in their localities. These are townships we're talking about, multiple townships.

Again, what you consider "genuine grievances" doesn't really matter.

Fascinating. I don’t have an argument because “I don’t like their reasons.”. And yet they have an arguement because they don’t like the reasons of the libs.

My opinion doesn’t matter and yet yours does?

I guess we really don’t have much more to say.

They have an argument because they have a right according to the principles of democracy to decide the conditions of their government and their locality. That is my argument, and really that's all that matters.

My opinion isn't actually involved here, because my opinion on their reasons doesn't matter either. I'm actually working on principle here, you're arguing out of pettiness and personal disdain for people you politically disagree with.

[Salus Maior]

I wouldn't call it "ethnic cleansing", but there's a similar vibe. It's denying people actual representation unless they move elsewhere.

Did they vote for a representative in the state legislature in the last election? The answer is yes therefore they have representation.

They don't get representation if their representatives don't actually get into the government.

[Proctopeo]

Who cares what the cons say? We're working on a principle here, not kindergarten politics. Although I understand the latter is how we operate these days.

You don't actually have an argument aside from "I don't like their reasons". With that in mind, it's perfectly valid to point out your opinion really doesn't matter when it comes to arguing the democratic principle. The will of the people either matters or it doesn't.

You don't actually know how these people would end up after moving from their land. And besides, it's more than just deeds to land we're working with here. They've legally expressed their will to cede from Oregon in democratic institutions in their localities. These are townships we're talking about, multiple townships.

Again, what you consider "genuine grievances" doesn't really matter.

Fascinating. I don’t have an argument because “I don’t like their reasons.”.

You've established several times that your primary issue is their political beliefs.

And yet they have an arguement because they don’t like the reasons of the libs.

I'm impressed with how hard you mangled this to make yourself look like a victim of sorts.

My opinion doesn’t matter and yet yours does?

Salus is considering nuance and principles. Your concerns begin and end with party politics.

Did they vote for a representative in the state legislature in the last election? The answer is yes therefore they have representation.

They don't get representation if their representatives don't actually get into the government.

It's also hardly representation if their representatives are only there to meet quorum.

[Salus Maior]

I wouldn't call it "ethnic cleansing", but there's a similar vibe. It's denying people actual representation unless they move elsewhere.

Did they vote for a representative in the state legislature in the last election? The answer is yes therefore they have representation.

Besides, how would this not be good for the democratic party in Oregon?

Their opposition literally wants to leave the Portland government wholly to them.

[The Black Forrest]

Its fascinating when one side says “if you don’t like it, move” and when they are told the same. “This isn’t right”

Show me where this "side" has said that, and how it actually connects to either us or the people in these counties.

It’s an old one. Especially back in the conservative days.

Oh and nobody ever suggested moving wasn’t easy….well you did.

Where? It's mostly been you and San Lumen suggesting that it is, by demanding they "just move".

You are the one arguing it’s just hard.

Anyway; When this goes down in flames; you won’t find that many moving.

Ok. How are their rights being trampled on by Portland?

I feel like you've gotten answers to this question more than once.

Actually I saw the comments involving the actions of Salem. If Salem was screwing them over and making life ugly, then we have a discussion point. I don’t like libs is not really a discussion point.

Then by all means list out their fucking greviances.

This is completely unrelated to the part of my post you're replying to. Did you misplace it?

How is it unrelated? Letting a small group of people redefine boundaries because the current government is liberal? I would say the same for libs over a conservatgive government.

If they are so fervently against being in Oregan, why don’t they go for their own state?

Welcome to modern America. One side will stop when the other side stops.

Participating in the hyperpartisan nonsense because "that's how it is" doesn't make it good to do so.

[/quote]

See the problem? It will only stop when the other side does it. If people believed it, sure it could happen. The problem? This is a new time of hate. I don’t believe the Trumpists will stop. Do you? Do you think the libs will stop?

-edit-
Corrected a spelling mistake “trumpest” to “trumpist”

[San Lumen]

Did they vote for a representative in the state legislature in the last election? The answer is yes therefore they have representation.

Besides, how would this not be good for the democratic party in Oregon?

Their opposition literally wants to leave the Portland government wholly to them.

It’s not the Portland government. It’s the Oregon government.

[Salus Maior]

Besides, how would this not be good for the democratic party in Oregon?

Their opposition literally wants to leave the Portland government wholly to them.

It’s not the Portland government. It’s the Oregon government.

Semantics.

Both parties would be better off by parting ways. The ever-consternated deep red counties cold join with a red state and be happy, and the blue Oregon government and the rest of the state would have a further-consolidated blue state and work out policies as they want without the red counties being a speed bump.

Sure, Oregon would lose a bit of land. But that's not worth that much.

[Proctopeo]

Show me where this "side" has said that, and how it actually connects to either us or the people in these counties.

It’s an old one. Especially back in the conservative days.

Show me, then.

Where? It's mostly been you and San Lumen suggesting that it is, by demanding they "just move".

You are the one arguing it’s just hard.

Yes, I'm saying that moving is hard. You've been heavily implying that it's something anyone can just do on a whim.

Anyway; When this goes down in flames; you won’t find that many moving.

Of course not, because moving isn't easy.

I feel like you've gotten answers to this question more than once.

Actually I saw the comments involving the actions of Salem. If Salem was screwing them over and making life ugly, then we have a discussion point. I don’t like libs is not really a discussion point.

It's one that you seem to have willed out of thin air.

This is completely unrelated to the part of my post you're replying to. Did you misplace it?

How is it unrelated?

Because it's a non-sequitur.

Letting a small group of people redefine boundaries because the current government is liberal? I would say the same for libs over a conservatgive government.

Somehow, I doubt that.

If they are so fervently against being in Oregan, why don’t they go for their own state?

Idaho exists, is nearby, and would represent them and their interests better.

Participating in the hyperpartisan nonsense because "that's how it is" doesn't make it good to do so.

See the problem? It will only stop when the other side does it. If people believed it, sure it could happen. The problem? This is a new time of hate. I don’t believe the Trumpests will stop. Do you? Do you think the libs will stop?

Nobody will stop. Especially not when people justify their participation by saying that it won't stop anyways. People refusing to participate is the one way it will stop.

[The Black Forrest]

It’s an old one. Especially back in the conservative days.

Show me, then.

You have never heard or read it? Ok. A quick google and we have a shirt. Probably one of the denizens of walmart

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansS ... e_it_move/

You are the one arguing it’s just hard.

Yes, I'm saying that moving is hard. You've been heavily implying that it's something anyone can just do on a whim.

Anyway; When this goes down in flames; you won’t find that many moving.

Of course not, because moving isn't easy.

Actually I saw the comments involving the actions of Salem. If Salem was screwing them over and making life ugly, then we have a discussion point. I don’t like libs is not really a discussion point.

It's one that you seem to have willed out of thin air.

*shrugs* if they want sympathy and support; grievances are a good thing.

How is it unrelated?

Because it's a non-sequitur.

Letting a small group of people redefine boundaries because the current government is liberal? I would say the same for libs over a conservatgive government.

Somehow, I doubt that.

You are free to assume what ever you want. You would be wrong. You do have that right.

If they are so fervently against being in Oregan, why don’t they go for their own state?

Idaho exists, is nearby, and would represent them and their interests better.

See the problem? It will only stop when the other side does it. If people believed it, sure it could happen. The problem? This is a new time of hate. I don’t believe the Trumpests will stop. Do you? Do you think the libs will stop?

Nobody will stop. Especially not when people justify their participation by saying that it won't stop anyways. People refusing to participate is the one way it will stop.

Ok. When you stop; I will

[Salus Maior]

Ok. When you stop; I will

Aren't you a bit old to be acting this way?

Whatever happened to being the better man?

[South Americanastan]

Show me, then.

You have never heard or read it? Ok. A quick google and we have a shirt. Probably one of the denizens of walmart

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansS ... e_it_move/

I don't think a Walmart shopper is a good representation of an entire sides argument. Especially when that specific person things stapling shit up to make the interior-facing portion of a wall is "tough"

[Samicana]

I mean I think the counties should just hold referendums and if the majority of the people vote to leave let them leave, this shouldn't involve Washington, Salem, or Boise.

Do I agree with the politics of the region? Absolutely not. Should they be properly represented? Yes.

[San Lumen]

Did they vote for a representative in the state legislature in the last election? The answer is yes therefore they have representation.

They don't get representation if their representatives don't actually get into the government.

Yes they do. It’s called the state legislature.

[San Lumen]

I mean I think the counties should just hold referendums and if the majority of the people vote to leave let them leave, this shouldn't involve Washington, Salem, or Boise.

Do I agree with the politics of the region? Absolutely not. Should they be properly represented? Yes.

It has to involve them. State boundaries cannot change without the approval of both states, congress and the president. It’s written into the constitution.

[Salus Maior]

I mean I think the counties should just hold referendums and if the majority of the people vote to leave let them leave, this shouldn't involve Washington, Salem, or Boise.

Do I agree with the politics of the region? Absolutely not. Should they be properly represented? Yes.

It has to involve them. State boundaries cannot change without the approval of both states, congress and the president. It’s written into the constitution.

Then America doesn't actually work on the democratic principle.

Which should be obvious, but you supposedly believe that America should be democratic.

[San Lumen]

It has to involve them. State boundaries cannot change without the approval of both states, congress and the president. It’s written into the constitution.

Then America doesn't actually work on the democratic principle.

Which should be obvious, but you supposedly believe that America should be democratic.

Yes it does. why should two thirds of their land go to another state without the elected government chosen in a free and fair getting a say in the matter?

Without such a measure states could breakup on a whim heck you might as well say the Confederacy should have been allowed to leave. They chose to leave via a vote of the legislature because they didn't;t like that Lincoln won and knew slavery the backbone of their economy was in jeopardy.

How is that different?

[Salus Maior]

Then America doesn't actually work on the democratic principle.

Which should be obvious, but you supposedly believe that America should be democratic.

Yes it does. why should two thirds of their land go to another state without the elected government chosen in a free and fair getting a say in the matter?

Without such a measure states could breakup on a whim heck you might as well say the Confederacy should have been allowed to leave. They chose to leave via a vote of the legislature because they didn't;t like that Lincoln won and knew slavery the backbone of their economy was in jeopardy.

How is that different?

The local governments are freely and legally elected.

The Confederacy left the Union. These counties are remaining in the Union, they just want to switch from one state to another.