These people want to abandon everything that makes their lives great for... (checks notes) The rights to control women, marry children, and to burn crosses on their ethnic neighbors lawn.
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
225 points (95.5% liked)
News
23014 readers
6 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Mostly (and this is probably true for over 60% of Republicans), it's about defunding half of the government programs they rely on but don't realize it, sold to them through the euphemism of "tax cuts".
I think the right to control women is next on the list, but even then we see that even republican public opinion on abortions is stricter than the left's, but would actually prefer less extreme laws than what has been passed.
As much of a meme as it is, most rural religious folk aren't militant about marrying children and burning crosses. We hear about every instance of child marriage cause it sucks so much, and people have been openly, violently racist despite the law for centuries, all it takes is a town full of like-minded people.
some 300 people live in some of those counties, which is like a city block in portland. If they want to be idaho so much why not just move there?
I can really sympathize with these guys. I live in a blue dot in one of the reddest states in the country. I have been talking with my friends about doing this exact thing.
Technically this is not secession. It's partitioning. They want to partition themselves and join Idaho. Just like I'd love to partition my city away from the shit hole parasitic state it's attached to.
The state level representation just isn't there for them. They're so dramatically in the minority that they have no voice in state government at all. So changes are mandated to them, and they're disillusioned. They love their home and they want the government to recognize them.
Set aside the crazy bullshit they want. The grievance is legitimate, the government completely ignores their desires, they haven't been able to get the government to acknowledge that, and so they retaliate by saying they don't want to be a part of it anymore.
To be clear, there is no resolution for people in this situation. They have no control over the state government, no ability to change it. The only choice is to leave, and faced with moving or a long shot at leaving or taking your home with you, you'd choose to take your home, every time.
What do they want that Idaho can provide that Oregon can't? Some people have to flee entire states over abortion laws for lifesaving medical procedures and they're told stuff like "well if you don't like it just move".
The ability to be more open about being white supremacist garbage. Idaho is a dumpster fire - the state is suffering shortages of medical professionals because of the GQP.
Imagine scraping the money together to move from Idaho to Oregon to protect your health and bodily autonomy, then 300 of your neighbors get together and decide, nope, you’re still in Idaho.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is caused by Gerrymandering and antidemocratic voter suppression. But Republicans don't want to fix those issues because they'd be a regional party overnight limited to just the south.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Though it is only 53% of them that want this. Not that I think that should cancel the entire vote, but it should complicate the situation because a 6% difference shouldn't change the situation into one that 47% don't want.
load more comments
(7 replies)
There are natural resources out there that the land owners want to extract. Washington's and Oregon's environmental law is far more stringent than Idaho's.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
So I am from WA and have been aware of this plan for a while.
This is one phase, and the next phase is to try to do this with as many Eastern WA counties as possible.
And to anyone wondering why this is happening, ya'll obviously are not from around the PNW.
Basically, Seattle, Tacoma and Portland are bastion of liberals and actual leftists. Bellevue is as well, but its only for corpos these days.
Nearly everywhere else west of the cascades is just barely more blue than red, and there are tons of smaller towns with Republican controlled county legislatures and town/city governments.
On the East of the Cascades, in the desert, basically, Republicans are generally in charge of everything that isn't a Reservation.
Its a bit more complex than this, but it is pretty much 'big cities' are blue, mid and small cities and everything else is red.
While I am against this succeeding, I do not think this is as cut and dry, obviously unconstitutional as some other posters here are making it seem.
It is not creating a new state. It is counties voting to leave one state and join another. To the best of my knowledge, this is completely unprecedented in the history of the US.
They've got a whole detailed plan for how to attempt to get this actually done. And they have a lot of judges, and now a popular mandate.
I honestly do not know how this will play out as it will likely hinge on various judiciaries and possibly executive (Governor) moves.
Yes, the state legislatures have to sign off on it and thats a big hurdle to jump, but it may actually be doable if enough political pressure is applied... especially if Trump wins.
It could possibly make it to the Circuit Courts and then the Supreme Court.
I describe it like this... the places where people actually live are blue.
The places where there are more square miles than people are red.
It should be noted this is true for almost the entirety of the United States.
While true, this is true in basically every area in the USA. If you have a tractor supply store near your house, you're in redneck territory. If you have a Lululemon, you're in blue territory.
Funnily enough I have one of each of those within about three miles of my home.
Found the centrist.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
There is a legal way to do this:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress
— Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1
Nebraska and South Dakota have a compact that's been approved by Congress that has land swap between the states based on where the river is when particular assessments happen. So land leaving one state and going to another state isn't unheard of. If you go look at NE and SD's border in the southeast corner of SD, you'll see the river and the border is pretty tight. Now compare that to states that have no such compact like Arkansas and Tennessee. River and the border are all kinds of messed up.
The thing is, both Idaho's and Oregon's State assembly will have to vote on it as you indicated. It's not up to the citizens to dictate when a state's border can be redrawn. Once Idaho and Oregon have a compact, they will need to send it to DC for Congress to vote on it. If it passes both the House and the Senate, the new compact can be enforced and the new borders drawn.
From what I've heard Oregon will not even begin to entertain this notion.
But yes, this is completely legal in the Constitution and we've done it before too. And we even have had the case where we took one state and split it into two happen before as well. Virginia and West Virginia. So we've used this part of the Constitution enough to know exactly how it needs to go down.
Is it going to go down? IDK. California said they were going to split up into 3, 4, 5 different States, not holding my breath on that one either. Would be pretty neat to redraw Idaho though. Never liked it's weird long edge on the west side. Now it'll look like someone giving the middle finger or something.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
Yea this might have something to do with it
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/24/people-rights-network-oregon-elections
At least 66 members of far-right group in rural Oregon standing for office
Revealed: anti-government People’s Rights Network, founded by Ammon Bundy, appearing to follow ‘entryism’ strategy
At least 66 members of an anti-government group founded by far-right militia figure Ammon Bundy have attempted to win local positions of influence in the Republican party in Oregon, the Guardian can reveal.
The candidates stood for Republican precinct committee person (PCP) slots in three central Oregon counties in this week’s elections, with some facing no opponent and thus winning their positions by default. The role of PCPs includes electing the executive of the county-level GOP apparatus.
The move is part of what appears to be a coordinated attempt to capture the local Republican party infrastructure, following a far-right strategy of “entryism” into more mainstream political bodies.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The parts of Oregon wanting this are rabidly anti-tax. The instant they find out Idaho has a 6% sales tax they'll cry and come crawling right back.
They'll swallow a 6% sales tax in exchange for joining ~~the white ethnostate of their dreams~~ idaho.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, you Republicans are fucking dumb.
This is so damn odd, it's a state. Just move. It's not another country. Shit like this is what makes me think we should just abolish the states honestly. This mindset is weird
Some people are too poor to move. Just move is an insane idea and we need to eradicate it.
So moving is an insane idea, but transferring huge portions of land between states is totally rational and reasonable?
load more comments
(7 replies)
Just move is a perfectly legitimate idea when the only reason you want to move is because a political ideology. Not even political ideology wanting to impose your political ideology. If this was an economic issue I would never say just move. If this was a persecution issue I would never say just move. If this was any legitimate issue I would never say just move. However this is obviously, pathetically obviously, none of those things. They don't like the people around them. They're bigots. Bigots should move.
Frankly I think it's absurd that you're even suggesting that they have some kind of legitimate gripe. Equating their issue to anything legitimate is beyond ignorant.
The cost of living is cheaper in Idaho! They’d just be giving up things like 1/3 the per student spending, physicians leaving to avoid idaho’s abortion laws, and face lower road spending, worse unemployment rights… I mean the benefits are right there. For the rest of us in Oregon. Sign here, press hard, 3 copies. Finally we can get rid of those walkout issues in the house.
Oregexit your hearts out. Don’t let the non gendered bathroom handle hit you on the ass as you go.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
I'm sure it won't happen, but there's a part of me that would just love to hear that when the negotiations get to Idaho, Idaho is just like "Nah, hard pass, we don't want you either."
Idaho can't afford those leeches
Yeah, this isn't greater idaho, this is even worse idaho.
Just get rid of the electoral college already and stop giving these dipshit minorities a chance in hell of moving this country backwards.
I know what you mean, but... phrasing?
Fuck Idaho. How about instead we go back to Washington Territorial borders and have the Evergreen State annex their whole crooked potato patch. They can have statehood back when they learn to behave themselves.
How about Lesser Idaho.
How about Nodaho.
No map. It's just a lack of Idaho.
Just make all the racists move to Idaho proper. No need to change state lines.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That will make Idaho look even stupider.
And it's already our stupidest-looking state.
load more comments
(4 replies)
So, this sort of thing requires both Congressional and state approval.
US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
Looking at the map, I'd guess that this isn't because of fundamental geographical differences, but because the current party split tends to be a rural-urban one. Here's a population density map for Oregon:
The more rural areas of Oregon, the counties without cities, are, based on current political coalitions, politically more similar to Idaho than to liberal coastal Oregon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System
The Sixth Party System is the era in United States politics following the Fifth Party System. As with any periodization, opinions differ on when the Sixth Party System may have begun, with suggested dates ranging from the late 1960s to the Republican Revolution of 1994. Nonetheless, there is agreement among scholars that the Sixth Party System features strong division between the Democratic and Republican parties, which are rooted in socioeconomic class, cultural, religious, educational and racial issues, and debates over the proper role of government.[1]
The Sixth Party System is characterized by an electoral shift from the electoral coalitions of the Fifth Party System during the New Deal. The Republican Party became the dominant party in the South, rural areas, and suburbs, and its voter base became shaped by White Evangelicals.[2] Meanwhile, the Democratic Party became the dominant party in urban areas, and its voter base diversified to include trade unionists, urban machinists, progressive intellectuals, as well as racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.
load more comments
(2 replies)
What the fuck?
You know things are about to get spicy when a state/nation adds the prefix "Greater" to its name
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›