|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 20 2021 15:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 14:39 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2021 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In case people are wondering if there is a limit to the rigid progressivism of Portland, there is. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2021/05/portland-announces-it-will-aggressively-clean-or-remove-homeless-encampments.html
“We have found that encampments return to a state of non-compliance within a matter of days, if not hours, depending on the location,” according to the memo written by city staff.
In a joint statement, all five city commissioners expressed support for the change, casting the stepped up evictions as good for people experiencing homelessness.
“These new protocols reprioritize public health and safety among houseless Portlanders and aim to improve sanitary conditions until we have additional shelter beds and housing available,” Wheeler and the rest of the City Council wrote. “Bureaus are currently inventorying city-owned properties for viable shelter or camping sites.”
This is not a case of Portland's population being mad at city commissioners. This is perhaps one of the most cheered for changes in Portland. Its honestly become a complete shit show. There are just a wild, wild amount of camps that are completely insane. Its like Mad Max in some areas. Here's the Reddit thread and a few wild comments: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tEGJpPN.png) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y8WqU1Z.png) https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/nga30y/portland_announces_it_will_aggressively_clean_or/My view: The correct solution to homelessness is to provide homes. Utah is a brilliant example of how to handle homeless people. Just build them houses. If you are NOT going to do that, the only solution is iron fist totalitarian evictions without hesitation. The current situation in Portland is that homeless camps end up being these wild societies where its just not good. This is not good for homeless people and its horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible for people who live in Portland. I moved away and there's no chance I'd ever go back. The Bay Area subreddit is the same way right now. It's funny because reddit tends to lean more to the the left and the Bay Area leans more to the left but put the two together and the Bay Area subreddit is almost like an alt-right forum. I genuinely believe most bleeding heart liberals like myself fight for the causes they do to help people. If you walk through Portland, it is chillingly clear tent communities are not helping homeless people. They simply aren’t better off being left alone. They are actively harming themselves and everyone around them. The more we let tent megastructures exist, the more the homeless suffer. The *moment* this was clearly a purely toxic situation where there isn’t good being created by my tolerance, it is truly terrible and needs to be addressed immediately. Change what we currently do. Try new things until something improves things. We can’t just be idle.
If it were up to me to deal with the homeless, I would not be housing them in dense housing in the most valuable part of the city. I would be shipping them out a hundred kilometers or so, to a place where housing is 1/5th the cost, and access to the drugs, people and community that enables the tent cities is dramatically harder to come by. Get people off drugs, through rehab, and once they're functioning members of society, figure out a way to re-integrate them. There's no way to solve it while they're surrounded by people offering drugs, and "friends" who's only friendship is they stop each other from overdosing because they all have naloxone.
Take a look at this AMA. It's on /r/vancouver, which is largely a demographic mirror of SF/Portland revolving around a tent city in Vancouver.
https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/mfhqhi/im_an_insider_at_strathcona_park_lets_talk_openly/
Look at how fucking out of touch the OP is compared to the general population. They want a self-governing low touch society, where crimes are left untouched. Zero sympathy for the tent cities, tear them down, and break them up.
|
On May 21 2021 01:16 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 15:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 20 2021 14:39 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2021 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In case people are wondering if there is a limit to the rigid progressivism of Portland, there is. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2021/05/portland-announces-it-will-aggressively-clean-or-remove-homeless-encampments.html
“We have found that encampments return to a state of non-compliance within a matter of days, if not hours, depending on the location,” according to the memo written by city staff.
In a joint statement, all five city commissioners expressed support for the change, casting the stepped up evictions as good for people experiencing homelessness.
“These new protocols reprioritize public health and safety among houseless Portlanders and aim to improve sanitary conditions until we have additional shelter beds and housing available,” Wheeler and the rest of the City Council wrote. “Bureaus are currently inventorying city-owned properties for viable shelter or camping sites.”
This is not a case of Portland's population being mad at city commissioners. This is perhaps one of the most cheered for changes in Portland. Its honestly become a complete shit show. There are just a wild, wild amount of camps that are completely insane. Its like Mad Max in some areas. Here's the Reddit thread and a few wild comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/nga30y/portland_announces_it_will_aggressively_clean_or/My view: The correct solution to homelessness is to provide homes. Utah is a brilliant example of how to handle homeless people. Just build them houses. If you are NOT going to do that, the only solution is iron fist totalitarian evictions without hesitation. The current situation in Portland is that homeless camps end up being these wild societies where its just not good. This is not good for homeless people and its horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible for people who live in Portland. I moved away and there's no chance I'd ever go back. The Bay Area subreddit is the same way right now. It's funny because reddit tends to lean more to the the left and the Bay Area leans more to the left but put the two together and the Bay Area subreddit is almost like an alt-right forum. I genuinely believe most bleeding heart liberals like myself fight for the causes they do to help people. If you walk through Portland, it is chillingly clear tent communities are not helping homeless people. They simply aren’t better off being left alone. They are actively harming themselves and everyone around them. The more we let tent megastructures exist, the more the homeless suffer. The *moment* this was clearly a purely toxic situation where there isn’t good being created by my tolerance, it is truly terrible and needs to be addressed immediately. Change what we currently do. Try new things until something improves things. We can’t just be idle. If it were up to me to deal with the homeless, I would not be housing them in dense housing in the most valuable part of the city. I would be shipping them out a hundred kilometers or so, to a place where housing is 1/5th the cost, and access to the drugs, people and community that enables the tent cities is dramatically harder to come by. Get people off drugs, through rehab, and once they're functioning members of society, figure out a way to re-integrate them. There's no way to solve it while they're surrounded by people offering drugs, and "friends" who's only friendship is they stop each other from overdosing because they all have naloxone.
Has something like this been tried anywhere? I assume it would face issues getting the homeless to agree to stay in such camps.
|
On May 21 2021 01:44 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2021 01:16 Lmui wrote:On May 20 2021 15:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 20 2021 14:39 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2021 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In case people are wondering if there is a limit to the rigid progressivism of Portland, there is. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2021/05/portland-announces-it-will-aggressively-clean-or-remove-homeless-encampments.html
“We have found that encampments return to a state of non-compliance within a matter of days, if not hours, depending on the location,” according to the memo written by city staff.
In a joint statement, all five city commissioners expressed support for the change, casting the stepped up evictions as good for people experiencing homelessness.
“These new protocols reprioritize public health and safety among houseless Portlanders and aim to improve sanitary conditions until we have additional shelter beds and housing available,” Wheeler and the rest of the City Council wrote. “Bureaus are currently inventorying city-owned properties for viable shelter or camping sites.”
This is not a case of Portland's population being mad at city commissioners. This is perhaps one of the most cheered for changes in Portland. Its honestly become a complete shit show. There are just a wild, wild amount of camps that are completely insane. Its like Mad Max in some areas. Here's the Reddit thread and a few wild comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/nga30y/portland_announces_it_will_aggressively_clean_or/My view: The correct solution to homelessness is to provide homes. Utah is a brilliant example of how to handle homeless people. Just build them houses. If you are NOT going to do that, the only solution is iron fist totalitarian evictions without hesitation. The current situation in Portland is that homeless camps end up being these wild societies where its just not good. This is not good for homeless people and its horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible for people who live in Portland. I moved away and there's no chance I'd ever go back. The Bay Area subreddit is the same way right now. It's funny because reddit tends to lean more to the the left and the Bay Area leans more to the left but put the two together and the Bay Area subreddit is almost like an alt-right forum. I genuinely believe most bleeding heart liberals like myself fight for the causes they do to help people. If you walk through Portland, it is chillingly clear tent communities are not helping homeless people. They simply aren’t better off being left alone. They are actively harming themselves and everyone around them. The more we let tent megastructures exist, the more the homeless suffer. The *moment* this was clearly a purely toxic situation where there isn’t good being created by my tolerance, it is truly terrible and needs to be addressed immediately. Change what we currently do. Try new things until something improves things. We can’t just be idle. If it were up to me to deal with the homeless, I would not be housing them in dense housing in the most valuable part of the city. I would be shipping them out a hundred kilometers or so, to a place where housing is 1/5th the cost, and access to the drugs, people and community that enables the tent cities is dramatically harder to come by. Get people off drugs, through rehab, and once they're functioning members of society, figure out a way to re-integrate them. There's no way to solve it while they're surrounded by people offering drugs, and "friends" who's only friendship is they stop each other from overdosing because they all have naloxone. Has something like this been tried anywhere? I assume it would face issues getting the homeless to agree to stay in such camps.
Its called a prison in the US afaik. Forcibly taking the homeless far away from population centers, until all those addicts are "functionning members of society". Doesn't work that well.
Noone talked about building it in the center of the city, just build appartments in the suburbs where they have access to jobs/services. Why do you want to alienate them even more in the name of "getting them off dem drugs" is beyond me
|
I think "functioning members of society" is too often a euphemism for "working an exploitative job for irreconcilable wages without basic worker rights/protections to further enrich wealthy people" in the US.
Perhaps being a "functioning member" of a dysfunctional society isn't actually a desirable goal?
Otherwise, I agree with what plasmid showed Finland was doing. Help people get housed, get people comprehensive healthcare and go from there.
|
On May 21 2021 01:55 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2021 01:44 Sbrubbles wrote:On May 21 2021 01:16 Lmui wrote:On May 20 2021 15:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 20 2021 14:39 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2021 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In case people are wondering if there is a limit to the rigid progressivism of Portland, there is. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2021/05/portland-announces-it-will-aggressively-clean-or-remove-homeless-encampments.html
“We have found that encampments return to a state of non-compliance within a matter of days, if not hours, depending on the location,” according to the memo written by city staff.
In a joint statement, all five city commissioners expressed support for the change, casting the stepped up evictions as good for people experiencing homelessness.
“These new protocols reprioritize public health and safety among houseless Portlanders and aim to improve sanitary conditions until we have additional shelter beds and housing available,” Wheeler and the rest of the City Council wrote. “Bureaus are currently inventorying city-owned properties for viable shelter or camping sites.”
This is not a case of Portland's population being mad at city commissioners. This is perhaps one of the most cheered for changes in Portland. Its honestly become a complete shit show. There are just a wild, wild amount of camps that are completely insane. Its like Mad Max in some areas. Here's the Reddit thread and a few wild comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/nga30y/portland_announces_it_will_aggressively_clean_or/My view: The correct solution to homelessness is to provide homes. Utah is a brilliant example of how to handle homeless people. Just build them houses. If you are NOT going to do that, the only solution is iron fist totalitarian evictions without hesitation. The current situation in Portland is that homeless camps end up being these wild societies where its just not good. This is not good for homeless people and its horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible for people who live in Portland. I moved away and there's no chance I'd ever go back. The Bay Area subreddit is the same way right now. It's funny because reddit tends to lean more to the the left and the Bay Area leans more to the left but put the two together and the Bay Area subreddit is almost like an alt-right forum. I genuinely believe most bleeding heart liberals like myself fight for the causes they do to help people. If you walk through Portland, it is chillingly clear tent communities are not helping homeless people. They simply aren’t better off being left alone. They are actively harming themselves and everyone around them. The more we let tent megastructures exist, the more the homeless suffer. The *moment* this was clearly a purely toxic situation where there isn’t good being created by my tolerance, it is truly terrible and needs to be addressed immediately. Change what we currently do. Try new things until something improves things. We can’t just be idle. If it were up to me to deal with the homeless, I would not be housing them in dense housing in the most valuable part of the city. I would be shipping them out a hundred kilometers or so, to a place where housing is 1/5th the cost, and access to the drugs, people and community that enables the tent cities is dramatically harder to come by. Get people off drugs, through rehab, and once they're functioning members of society, figure out a way to re-integrate them. There's no way to solve it while they're surrounded by people offering drugs, and "friends" who's only friendship is they stop each other from overdosing because they all have naloxone. Has something like this been tried anywhere? I assume it would face issues getting the homeless to agree to stay in such camps. Its called a prison in the US afaik. Forcibly taking the homeless far away from population centers, until all those addicts are "functionning members of society". Doesn't work that well. Noone talked about building it in the center of the city, just build appartments in the suburbs where they have access to jobs/services. Why do you want to alienate them even more in the name of "getting them off dem drugs" is beyond me
I agree that "shipping them" does appear to imply coertion by force, but my post was made under the assumption that it didn't, because otherwise his suggestion would be an obvious non-starter (my question of voluntariness would also be moot).
|
|
|
The idea that people living in tent cities can be rehabbed into functioning members of society is an ambitious goal. I think it's a mistake to interchangeably use the terms "people that live in tent cities" and "homeless." There are a lot of homeless people that don't live in tent cities - they sleep in their cars, they crash at friends places, they stay at housing shelters, etc.. A lot of them just need a leg up to becoming functioning members of society again. People that live in tent cities are a subsection of a subsection. They are the bottom 10% of the bottom 10%. I think people are unwilling to acknowledge that some people will never be functioning members of society. The idea that we can just ship them off to a rehab city and then reintegrate them into society is just a fairy tale we tell ourselves to avoid accepting the cold hard truth that most (not all) of the people living in tent cities will never be productive. It's not a real answer for what to do with them and that's okay because I don't have a good answer either.
|
On May 21 2021 06:08 BlackJack wrote:
The idea that people living in tent cities can be rehabbed into functioning members of society is an ambitious goal. I think it's a mistake to interchangeably use the terms "people that live in tent cities" and "homeless." There are a lot of homeless people that don't live in tent cities - they sleep in their cars, they crash at friends places, they stay at housing shelters, etc.. A lot of them just need a leg up to becoming functioning members of society again. People that live in tent cities are a subsection of a subsection. They are the bottom 10% of the bottom 10%. I think people are unwilling to acknowledge that some people will never be functioning members of society. The idea that we can just ship them off to a rehab city and then reintegrate them into society is just a fairy tale we tell ourselves to avoid accepting the cold hard truth that most (not all) of the people living in tent cities will never be productive. It's not a real answer for what to do with them and that's okay because I don't have a good answer either.
They definitely are the most difficult and expensive people to get integrated back to society. But they're also the most expensive people to the society so attempts to integrate them might be the ones with the highest payoffs. People who are temporarily homeless and still working or otherwise active are not the ones that need the most help or cause the most costs.
Regarding the most deprived parts of the population: another key to the Finnish approach is the social workers being in a lot of contact with the folk they're trying to help. Like possibly visiting them daily kind of level of contact. Houses themselves do only so much, but combined with someone that is there to pay you a visit when needed, to chat about stuff and advice with things like paying rent on time or where to ask for help with debts etc. helps a lot, especially those who otherwise have the least capability to get themselves back on track. But the key is a lot of personal contact, which means hiring social workers, and that doesn't really sound like something that's particularly in fashion in the US.
|
|
|
On May 21 2021 06:28 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2021 06:08 BlackJack wrote:
The idea that people living in tent cities can be rehabbed into functioning members of society is an ambitious goal. I think it's a mistake to interchangeably use the terms "people that live in tent cities" and "homeless." There are a lot of homeless people that don't live in tent cities - they sleep in their cars, they crash at friends places, they stay at housing shelters, etc.. A lot of them just need a leg up to becoming functioning members of society again. People that live in tent cities are a subsection of a subsection. They are the bottom 10% of the bottom 10%. I think people are unwilling to acknowledge that some people will never be functioning members of society. The idea that we can just ship them off to a rehab city and then reintegrate them into society is just a fairy tale we tell ourselves to avoid accepting the cold hard truth that most (not all) of the people living in tent cities will never be productive. It's not a real answer for what to do with them and that's okay because I don't have a good answer either. They definitely are the most difficult and expensive people to get integrated back to society. But they're also the most expensive people to the society so attempts to integrate them might be the ones with the highest payoffs. People who are temporarily homeless and still working or otherwise active are not the ones that need the most help or cause the most costs. Regarding the most deprived parts of the population: another key to the Finnish approach is the social workers being in a lot of contact with the folk they're trying to help. Like possibly visiting them daily kind of level of contact. Houses themselves do only so much, but combined with someone that is there to pay you a visit when needed, to chat about stuff and advice with things like paying rent on time or where to ask for help with debts etc. helps a lot, especially those who otherwise have the least capability to get themselves back on track. But the key is a lot of personal contact, which means hiring social workers, and that doesn't really sound like something that's particularly in fashion in the US.
Humans don't need to be productive. Just content and not hurting others.
|
On May 21 2021 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2021 06:28 Oukka wrote:On May 21 2021 06:08 BlackJack wrote:
The idea that people living in tent cities can be rehabbed into functioning members of society is an ambitious goal. I think it's a mistake to interchangeably use the terms "people that live in tent cities" and "homeless." There are a lot of homeless people that don't live in tent cities - they sleep in their cars, they crash at friends places, they stay at housing shelters, etc.. A lot of them just need a leg up to becoming functioning members of society again. People that live in tent cities are a subsection of a subsection. They are the bottom 10% of the bottom 10%. I think people are unwilling to acknowledge that some people will never be functioning members of society. The idea that we can just ship them off to a rehab city and then reintegrate them into society is just a fairy tale we tell ourselves to avoid accepting the cold hard truth that most (not all) of the people living in tent cities will never be productive. It's not a real answer for what to do with them and that's okay because I don't have a good answer either. They definitely are the most difficult and expensive people to get integrated back to society. But they're also the most expensive people to the society so attempts to integrate them might be the ones with the highest payoffs. People who are temporarily homeless and still working or otherwise active are not the ones that need the most help or cause the most costs. Regarding the most deprived parts of the population: another key to the Finnish approach is the social workers being in a lot of contact with the folk they're trying to help. Like possibly visiting them daily kind of level of contact. Houses themselves do only so much, but combined with someone that is there to pay you a visit when needed, to chat about stuff and advice with things like paying rent on time or where to ask for help with debts etc. helps a lot, especially those who otherwise have the least capability to get themselves back on track. But the key is a lot of personal contact, which means hiring social workers, and that doesn't really sound like something that's particularly in fashion in the US. Humans don't need to be productive. Just content and not hurting others.
First source I found:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/one-homeless-person-costs-171-000-a-year-1.365403
According to the province, the average costs of services for a person living on the streets is around $56,000.
56k CAD a year in 2009 (first article I found). Costs have increased dramatically since then.
Every person you make productive, or at least not an active detriment to society is worth 100k+ CAD to taxpayers now (Probably 75k USD).
Between clogging up the justice system, increased policing costs, costs of minor crime etc, even one social worker per homeless person + rent is cheaper if you can get them somewhat useful to society.
|
Well I guess we know who the first volunteers for the Moon and Mars colonies will be, don't we? /s
|
On May 21 2021 09:58 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2021 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On May 21 2021 06:28 Oukka wrote:On May 21 2021 06:08 BlackJack wrote:
The idea that people living in tent cities can be rehabbed into functioning members of society is an ambitious goal. I think it's a mistake to interchangeably use the terms "people that live in tent cities" and "homeless." There are a lot of homeless people that don't live in tent cities - they sleep in their cars, they crash at friends places, they stay at housing shelters, etc.. A lot of them just need a leg up to becoming functioning members of society again. People that live in tent cities are a subsection of a subsection. They are the bottom 10% of the bottom 10%. I think people are unwilling to acknowledge that some people will never be functioning members of society. The idea that we can just ship them off to a rehab city and then reintegrate them into society is just a fairy tale we tell ourselves to avoid accepting the cold hard truth that most (not all) of the people living in tent cities will never be productive. It's not a real answer for what to do with them and that's okay because I don't have a good answer either. They definitely are the most difficult and expensive people to get integrated back to society. But they're also the most expensive people to the society so attempts to integrate them might be the ones with the highest payoffs. People who are temporarily homeless and still working or otherwise active are not the ones that need the most help or cause the most costs. Regarding the most deprived parts of the population: another key to the Finnish approach is the social workers being in a lot of contact with the folk they're trying to help. Like possibly visiting them daily kind of level of contact. Houses themselves do only so much, but combined with someone that is there to pay you a visit when needed, to chat about stuff and advice with things like paying rent on time or where to ask for help with debts etc. helps a lot, especially those who otherwise have the least capability to get themselves back on track. But the key is a lot of personal contact, which means hiring social workers, and that doesn't really sound like something that's particularly in fashion in the US. Humans don't need to be productive. Just content and not hurting others. First source I found: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/one-homeless-person-costs-171-000-a-year-1.365403Show nested quote +According to the province, the average costs of services for a person living on the streets is around $56,000. 56k CAD a year in 2009 (first article I found). Costs have increased dramatically since then. Every person you make productive, or at least not an active detriment to society is worth 100k+ CAD to taxpayers now (Probably 75k USD). Between clogging up the justice system, increased policing costs, costs of minor crime etc, even one social worker per homeless person + rent is cheaper if you can get them somewhat useful to society.
Remember you can throw a lot of money in well intended treatment at these people and gain nothing if they are not profoundly motivated to change their lives. These are often victims of serious abuse and neglect, and the damage might be irreparable. My mother has worked in the sector.
I personally like the idea of removing drugs from the black market a lot. Giving them drugs is morally questionable, but a very effective way of keeping them monitored and avoiding the crimes they do to buy the drugs.
|
|
|
In the dumbest news of the day (followed by the nooses being found in Conneticut), this shit just boggles my giblets. Stupid is as stupid does.
In rural Oregon, voters in several counties want their state to go from Democratic blue to Republican red — and to do that, they hope to leave Oregon altogether and join neighboring Idaho. Five counties approved ballot measures this week, joining two others that had already voted in favor of the idea.
"This election proves that rural Oregon wants out of Oregon," said Mike McCarter, president of the advocacy group Citizens for Greater Idaho.
He added, "If we're allowed to vote for which government officials we want, we should be allowed to vote for which government we want as well."
All seven counties voted heavily for former President Donald Trump — whose name appears 17 times in the advocacy group's 41-page proposal to shift the borders.
In the movement led by McCarter, conservative voters want to reshuffle counties in eastern and southern Oregon, making them part of Idaho. The plan's backers want to get ballot initiatives placed on the ballot in more of Oregon's 36 counties.
Despite seven counties now backing it, the push to secede is not likely to succeed. As Oregon Public Broadcasting notes, "the Oregon and Idaho legislatures and the U.S. Congress would need to sign off" on the plan.
In the face of those long odds, supporters of the plan say extending Idaho's western boundary far into Oregon would benefit people and lawmakers in both states. They say people in rural Oregon have values and economies that more closely align with those in Idaho.
The ballot initiatives that were endorsed this week stop short of demanding an immediate departure from Oregon. Voters in Sherman County and Grant County, for instance, backed measures that urge officials to discuss the idea of relocating the border and to promote the plan if it's in the counties' best interests.
Source
And to think I had wanted to move to the state (Bend, specifically) as a kid. Glad that dream never came to fruition.
|
On May 22 2021 02:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:In the dumbest news of the day (followed by the nooses being found in Conneticut), this shit just boggles my giblets. Stupid is as stupid does. Show nested quote +In rural Oregon, voters in several counties want their state to go from Democratic blue to Republican red — and to do that, they hope to leave Oregon altogether and join neighboring Idaho. Five counties approved ballot measures this week, joining two others that had already voted in favor of the idea.
"This election proves that rural Oregon wants out of Oregon," said Mike McCarter, president of the advocacy group Citizens for Greater Idaho.
He added, "If we're allowed to vote for which government officials we want, we should be allowed to vote for which government we want as well."
All seven counties voted heavily for former President Donald Trump — whose name appears 17 times in the advocacy group's 41-page proposal to shift the borders.
In the movement led by McCarter, conservative voters want to reshuffle counties in eastern and southern Oregon, making them part of Idaho. The plan's backers want to get ballot initiatives placed on the ballot in more of Oregon's 36 counties.
Despite seven counties now backing it, the push to secede is not likely to succeed. As Oregon Public Broadcasting notes, "the Oregon and Idaho legislatures and the U.S. Congress would need to sign off" on the plan.
In the face of those long odds, supporters of the plan say extending Idaho's western boundary far into Oregon would benefit people and lawmakers in both states. They say people in rural Oregon have values and economies that more closely align with those in Idaho.
The ballot initiatives that were endorsed this week stop short of demanding an immediate departure from Oregon. Voters in Sherman County and Grant County, for instance, backed measures that urge officials to discuss the idea of relocating the border and to promote the plan if it's in the counties' best interests. SourceAnd to think I had wanted to move to the state (Bend, specifically) as a kid. Glad that dream never came to fruition. I assume no one has explained to them that they are free to leave Oregon and move to Idaho if they want to live there so badly?
|
On May 22 2021 03:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2021 02:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:In the dumbest news of the day (followed by the nooses being found in Conneticut), this shit just boggles my giblets. Stupid is as stupid does. In rural Oregon, voters in several counties want their state to go from Democratic blue to Republican red — and to do that, they hope to leave Oregon altogether and join neighboring Idaho. Five counties approved ballot measures this week, joining two others that had already voted in favor of the idea.
"This election proves that rural Oregon wants out of Oregon," said Mike McCarter, president of the advocacy group Citizens for Greater Idaho.
He added, "If we're allowed to vote for which government officials we want, we should be allowed to vote for which government we want as well."
All seven counties voted heavily for former President Donald Trump — whose name appears 17 times in the advocacy group's 41-page proposal to shift the borders.
In the movement led by McCarter, conservative voters want to reshuffle counties in eastern and southern Oregon, making them part of Idaho. The plan's backers want to get ballot initiatives placed on the ballot in more of Oregon's 36 counties.
Despite seven counties now backing it, the push to secede is not likely to succeed. As Oregon Public Broadcasting notes, "the Oregon and Idaho legislatures and the U.S. Congress would need to sign off" on the plan.
In the face of those long odds, supporters of the plan say extending Idaho's western boundary far into Oregon would benefit people and lawmakers in both states. They say people in rural Oregon have values and economies that more closely align with those in Idaho.
The ballot initiatives that were endorsed this week stop short of demanding an immediate departure from Oregon. Voters in Sherman County and Grant County, for instance, backed measures that urge officials to discuss the idea of relocating the border and to promote the plan if it's in the counties' best interests. SourceAnd to think I had wanted to move to the state (Bend, specifically) as a kid. Glad that dream never came to fruition. I assume no one has explained to them that they are free to leave Oregon and move to Idaho if they want to live there so badly?
I feel this is more to "stick it to the libs" than anything rational. Most of those people fail at common sense and rationality. So probably no, they didn't think that far into the future.
|
On May 22 2021 03:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2021 02:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:In the dumbest news of the day (followed by the nooses being found in Conneticut), this shit just boggles my giblets. Stupid is as stupid does. In rural Oregon, voters in several counties want their state to go from Democratic blue to Republican red — and to do that, they hope to leave Oregon altogether and join neighboring Idaho. Five counties approved ballot measures this week, joining two others that had already voted in favor of the idea.
"This election proves that rural Oregon wants out of Oregon," said Mike McCarter, president of the advocacy group Citizens for Greater Idaho.
He added, "If we're allowed to vote for which government officials we want, we should be allowed to vote for which government we want as well."
All seven counties voted heavily for former President Donald Trump — whose name appears 17 times in the advocacy group's 41-page proposal to shift the borders.
In the movement led by McCarter, conservative voters want to reshuffle counties in eastern and southern Oregon, making them part of Idaho. The plan's backers want to get ballot initiatives placed on the ballot in more of Oregon's 36 counties.
Despite seven counties now backing it, the push to secede is not likely to succeed. As Oregon Public Broadcasting notes, "the Oregon and Idaho legislatures and the U.S. Congress would need to sign off" on the plan.
In the face of those long odds, supporters of the plan say extending Idaho's western boundary far into Oregon would benefit people and lawmakers in both states. They say people in rural Oregon have values and economies that more closely align with those in Idaho.
The ballot initiatives that were endorsed this week stop short of demanding an immediate departure from Oregon. Voters in Sherman County and Grant County, for instance, backed measures that urge officials to discuss the idea of relocating the border and to promote the plan if it's in the counties' best interests. SourceAnd to think I had wanted to move to the state (Bend, specifically) as a kid. Glad that dream never came to fruition. I assume no one has explained to them that they are free to leave Oregon and move to Idaho if they want to live there so badly?
They want to leave, but also take their farm with them.
|
On May 22 2021 02:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:In the dumbest news of the day (followed by the nooses being found in Conneticut), this shit just boggles my giblets. Stupid is as stupid does. Show nested quote +In rural Oregon, voters in several counties want their state to go from Democratic blue to Republican red — and to do that, they hope to leave Oregon altogether and join neighboring Idaho. Five counties approved ballot measures this week, joining two others that had already voted in favor of the idea.
"This election proves that rural Oregon wants out of Oregon," said Mike McCarter, president of the advocacy group Citizens for Greater Idaho.
He added, "If we're allowed to vote for which government officials we want, we should be allowed to vote for which government we want as well."
All seven counties voted heavily for former President Donald Trump — whose name appears 17 times in the advocacy group's 41-page proposal to shift the borders.
In the movement led by McCarter, conservative voters want to reshuffle counties in eastern and southern Oregon, making them part of Idaho. The plan's backers want to get ballot initiatives placed on the ballot in more of Oregon's 36 counties.
Despite seven counties now backing it, the push to secede is not likely to succeed. As Oregon Public Broadcasting notes, "the Oregon and Idaho legislatures and the U.S. Congress would need to sign off" on the plan.
In the face of those long odds, supporters of the plan say extending Idaho's western boundary far into Oregon would benefit people and lawmakers in both states. They say people in rural Oregon have values and economies that more closely align with those in Idaho.
The ballot initiatives that were endorsed this week stop short of demanding an immediate departure from Oregon. Voters in Sherman County and Grant County, for instance, backed measures that urge officials to discuss the idea of relocating the border and to promote the plan if it's in the counties' best interests. SourceAnd to think I had wanted to move to the state (Bend, specifically) as a kid. Glad that dream never came to fruition.
This portion of Oregon is as unincorporated as it gets. More cows than people. Bend is great, a bit conservative, but still great. The liberal parts of Oregon are the NW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
