PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on February 18, 2020, 12:03:56 AM
-
Just had this audacious idea called to my attention: a proposal to incorporate parts of Oregon, and possibly parts of northern California into Idaho. They even have a web page explaining their rationale:
http://www.greateridaho.org/ (http://www.greateridaho.org/)
Historical precedence exists (e.g. civil war era split of Virginia, an area known as Boston Corner, NY) though nothing on this scale.
(http://www.greateridaho.org/the_graphics/maps/Full/Greater_Idaho_Full.jpg)
-
The whole reason we have the electoral college.
For years the "Will of the People" for Oregon & California has all but ignored those living in rural areas and concentrated on the large population centers.
By increasing the rural area of Idaho, the state will have a much better balance between Rural and Urban giving the voters a balanced voice in what is happening in their state.
Additionally, by reducing the rural areas in Oregon and, to a much smaller amount, California, this will free up state legislators to concentrate on the Urban areas and the ever increasing problems they face.
Speaking of which:
For presidential elections, there are 538 electoral votes in the country. For every 754,000 people that move from a blue state to a red state, Republicans gain one electoral vote, which is only 0.19% of 538. Since the population of the departing counties from Oregon is 856,121, Oregon would usually have one less electoral vote. The loss of electoral vote(s) would not take effect until the 2032 elections. During about half of the upcoming decades, California would have one less vote, if it allows the 355,192 people in northernmost California to become a part of Idaho. We regard this as insignificant compared to 538 votes.
I like it.
-
The only problem I have with that is that they didn’t include eastern Washington state, where I live! We are red, and I want in!!!!
-
The Founding Fathers either did not foresee this issue, or did not think it was their place to tell States how to structure their governments. We now are faced with the tyranny of the Metro Area population centers over the other, less populated counties in each state. It's not just Oregon with is craziness from Portland and Eugene, it is all states with Metro areas big enough to over shadow everyone else.
This is the largest problem facing the country as all Metros (cites, suburbs, ex-burbs) are now all Democrat and believe the a collectivist, Big Government, controlling mindset.
Look at Virginia recently. They just narrowly escaped (postponed) a ban and confiscation of legally owned firearms by ONE PARTY RULE.
-
The Founding Fathers either did not foresee this issue, or did not think it was their place to tell States how to structure their governments. We now are faced with the tyranny of the Metro Area population centers over the other, less populated counties in each state. It's not just Oregon with is craziness from Portland and Eugene, it is all states with Metro areas big enough to over shadow everyone else.
This is the largest problem facing the country as all Metros (cites, suburbs, ex-burbs) are now all Democrat and believe the a collectivist, Big Government, controlling mindset.
Look at Virginia recently. They just narrowly escaped (postponed) a ban and confiscation of legally owned firearms by ONE PARTY RULE.
THIS!! This is our whole problem in a nutshell. In 1776 you didn’t have 2% of the population feeding 98% and relentless movement into cities. You had a large portion of citizens in small towns and rural areas. It wasn’t as unbalanced as it is now.
Back then only the upper classes were disconnected from having to feed themselves and survive. Today, everyone living in cities, rich or poor, are disconnected from how to grow food. Probably more than anything that defines liberal urban “feed me” culture from conservative rural self sufficiency, and the ideologies follow directly therefrom.
It’s a terrible dangerous trend this growing imbalance and if the city liberals don’t wake up and see themselves as promoting communist dystopia - and I’m talking about the poor and middle class - this county is over. The rich liberal elite will never “wake up” because their agenda isn’t the same as the rest of us, it’s to hold onto power and money at all cost. They can buy their own protection and liberty (fly jets all around) unlike the rest of us, and so they impose their utopian control freak schemes on the great unwashed, because they will never live by their own rules.
-
And the disdain of the urban "elites" for anyone outside their bubble is clear. Just listen to Bloomberg: "You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that.” They are sooooo much better than the rest of us because they don't get their hands dirty.
That's the elites... but what about the service workers in cities? How do they see the rural folk? I suspect it's much the same.
-
THIS!! This is our whole problem in a nutshell. In 1776 you didn’t have 2% of the population feeding 98% and relentless movement into cities. You had a large portion of citizens in small towns and rural areas. It wasn’t as unbalanced as it is now.
Back then only the upper classes were disconnected from having to feed themselves and survive. Today, everyone living in cities, rich or poor, are disconnected from how to grow food. Probably more than anything that defines liberal urban “feed me” culture from conservative rural self sufficiency, and the ideologies follow directly therefrom.
It’s a terrible dangerous trend this growing imbalance and if the city liberals don’t wake up and see themselves as promoting communist dystopia - and I’m talking about the poor and middle class - this county is over. The rich liberal elite will never “wake up” because their agenda isn’t the same as the rest of us, it’s to hold onto power and money at all cost. They can buy their own protection and liberty (fly jets all around) unlike the rest of us, and so they impose their utopian control freak schemes on the great unwashed, because they will never live by their own rules.
There is a fix for that, which has happened before, but it is terribly destructive, dangerous, and requires incredible bravery, and perseverance.
-
And the disdain of the urban "elites" for anyone outside their bubble is clear. Just listen to Bloomberg: "You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that.” They are sooooo much better than the rest of us because they don't get their hands dirty.
That's the elites... but what about the service workers in cities? How do they see the rural folk? I suspect it's much the same.
Exactly. As for the service workers, these are the ones I'm hanging my hopes on. Just like Trump told the blacks, "What have you got to lose?" I'm banking on them having voted Dem reflexively and not really having thought for themselves. But it's going to be a uphill climb because they're all going to public indoctrination centers (schools) these days. And watching a slanted mainstream media.
But in their defense, I have been rethinking my own journey, and realizing that I may have started out more liberal than I remember. I was never a leftist on the subject of economics... always free market capitalism. But in my youth, I grew up in the big city, and held many liberal viewpoints. I was against the Vietnam War (never hated on our soldiers though), for gay rights, for women's rights in the first or second wave sense, not the man-hating feminazi sense of these days, I was pro drug legalization, I was pro Civil Rights, and for taking care of the homeless. The only really conservative social viewpoint I had was being against abortion.
When I go back and watch videos of influencers from back then, I find myself relating much more to the liberals of the 70s and 80s than the hard left liberals of today, who have become simply thugs, and I even related more to them than to the Republicans of the time, ie: Jesse Helms (although he became a personal friend much later on, I didn't like his ilk at first. But part of that is that he transformed, lost some of his racist rhetoric and actually embraced finding a cure for AIDS after bashing gays earlier on. He was never actually a racist and had many black supporters all along, but speech was not very PC in those days).
So my point is... the Democrats in the city today may have come from those same roots, and simply unlike me, never left the Democrat mindset. I personally was never an actual total Democrat especially fiscally because I was introduced to Libertarianism very early, and landed there, and stayed there, but quickly started voting Republican most of the time because I recognized that economic freedom must come before social freedoms or all is moot, and Constitutional protections trump everything.
But no one ever brainwashed me into leftist economics, back in my primary school days it had not yet infected the schools, and when I got my BA in economics I had a healthy confusion about the Keynesian aspects they kept trying to teach me. Besides, I was eating up Heinlein and Ayn Rand novels in my spare time, and hanging out with a few intense gay libertarians. The socialist/communist/Marxist sort of ideals (economic collectivism) never took hold in me, but, alas, I fear they have in city dwellers of today.
So the service workers, youth, poor and middle class in urban areas today?... I don't know... but I'm sure they must or we will face economic totalitarianism... or war, or both, soon.