Idaho and Oregon talks about redrawing state lines

[dan_bgblue]

I am reading that most democrats in Oregon are dead set against the idea and are claiming that it would be very bad for both states and even worse for the country. They are not sharing the reasons for their opinions, just stating their opposition in democrat terms. On the other hand, conservatives both in Idaho and in Oregon seem to be in lock step support of the proposal. Idaho's house has already voted for a bill in support of the action and are awaiting senate bill passage or rejection.

As an outsider in KY, I can not see any negatives to taking such action given that the people most affected by such a move are rural area conservatives that want to get away from being governed by liberals in the cities and hippie like enclaves. Several rural counties in California have been talking about a similar action for several years.

Anyone have an opinion of either proposed action?

Linkage

[bigsky]

Yes. I am not for it. It is the first step towards splitting California, making DC and PUerto Rico a state, etc.

It also has very much the “national divorce feel to it. I don’t see how it is different from the conservative counties of america leaving the union. Most of the midwest, rocky mtn west, great basin, and south one country, the coasts and big cities another.

[dan_bgblue]

Biggest difference that I think I see is that there is no leaving the union in play here. In the country's history there have been previous redrawing of borders, but the difference has been that the border redrawing has been done by congress and not at the request of the citizens involved. Washington will have to approve even if both states approve of new border lines.

[VirginiaCat]

This is really part of a much broader problem and issue and this would be precedent setting.

Like BigSky pointed out...there are MANY in California that want to break away and have a East CA or something like it. The Coast determines the policies of all.

And that is the bigger situation that has to be addressed. Virtually every state is now dominated by a "City State". In VA, 3 counties determine state wide policies for the entire state but those 3 counties are very urban and soltuions and policies that work for them are just plain stupid in rural areas. Illinois has been this way for years with Chicago.

But, now we are a truly fractured nation...and these differences matter. I am leaning more and more to a national divorce and break up option. It is the only thing that really makes sense.

[KentuckyWildcat]

Let's just split the west coast states in half and kick them to the curb. Problem solved.

[dan_bgblue]

Re: Idaho and Oregon talks about redrawing state lines

Yes. I am not for it. It is the first step towards splitting California, making DC and PUerto Rico a state, etc.

It also has very much the “national divorce feel to it. I don’t see how it is different from the conservative counties of america leaving the union. Most of the midwest, rocky mtn west, great basin, and south one country, the coasts and big cities another.

bigsky, do you have a suggested solution to what I view as a problem? There is lots of ignorant babble on the internet about civil war, and various armed hate groups camped out in the woods prancing warfare, but I do not see civil war coming nor do I see it as an option to solve the current problem. We need to find a way to live together and be content, and my only solution is to have like minded people govern themselves and let the other like minded people do the same. We appear to be flying 2 Gadsden flags, both representing the same idea, but for different ideals, and the "great unifier" is failing miserably on his campaign promise.

[bigsky]

I do not. People I know and trust know the Burns Oregon situation from a few years ago. The power of the national government is the problem. The national govt needs to insignificant except for national defense. Another good example is Montana and Idaho under the Ninth federal circuit. That judiciary overrides local and state policy with impunity.

[CitizenBBN]

I do not. People I know and trust know the Burns Oregon situation from a few years ago. The power of the national government is the problem. The national govt needs to insignificant except for national defense. Another good example is Montana and Idaho under the Ninth federal circuit. That judiciary overrides local and state policy with impunity.

And that's the problem. Those in power WANT the feds to have that power, b/c they don't like what you decide to do there and they want it overridden.

They can't stand the idea of people governing themselves if that entails them doing things differently than they think should be done. The bedrock American principles of letting people pursue their own notions with individual liberty is no longer a priority for half of the country, and is seen by a big chunk of that half as somehow immoral. The very notions of individual liberty, freedom of expression and speech are under direct assault in ways not seen since they were in fact established in this country.

Limiting power is the obvious solution but that other half has no inclination to do so b/c they know if they do then half the country will not behave the way they want them to behave, so they will not support a "live and let live" approach when their ideology is based not in liberty but in furthering an agenda by whatever means are necessary whether people agree with it or not.

Which brings us right back to the current schism and talk of a national divorce.