They have no power in our system to simply upend norms as they choose.
They can pack up and move themselves if they don’t like it.
The onus is not on everyone else to cater to them. It’s to abide laws as they are written within our constitutional system of elections and statutes overseeing them.
I’m not saying that’s ideal. I’m saying that’s how it works.
Down votes do nothing to make it any less true.
If these folks would like to change that, I’m sure blue urban areas and states would love to renegotiate their wealth being extracted to fund rural communities.
Ironically, Idaho is a bigger grifter on Federal welfare than Oregon.
So they want a more conservative way of life? Which appears to mean “more welfare for me”.
If they dig into the history a bit they’d learn rural life was subsidized to begin with, with the government paying business to move out of urban areas.
Using government to change the rules for all is not “little government”. Upending state borders out of spite is hardly a “conservative” solution.
Their entire platform is laughable given the reality.
Frankly you are just ranting about conservatives and not talking about topic at hand. It is completely irrelevant if conservatives are hypocrites and whatever else you are accusing them of being.
If you believe in democratic institutions then people will sometimes vote for things you do not support. If Oregon and Idaho legislatures along with the US Congress also agree to this then it should happen.
Nobody is saying that we should not follow the rules and have the legislatures and congress vote on this. Your accusation that they are not abiding by the Constitution is ridiculous and just an outright lie. This vote is just an indication of what they would like to see. So instead of ranting about off topic things why don't you actually make a real argument about why this should not happen.
It is very clear you are not even trying to understand these people. You are not listening to them and are just being a jerk. It is people like you that cause these rural people to want to leave states filled with people who make libelous statements against them.
It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide election laws insuring the “rule of law” bit.
I don’t see how it runs contrary to the rule of law. Im not aware of any legal obstructions that couldn’t be overcome, especially if everyone involved wanted it to succeed.
What purpose does the state serve, if not to empower the people. If some regions want to join another state, why not enable them if it is not inherently hostile or damaging to others? Perhaps the rest of the state would be happy to see these people and the land they live on go.
It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.
The state has an obligation to the people. Not some people who don’t like the state anymore.
I’d feel this way if it was left leaning folks who want the liberal regions to join California.
It’s not about “these people” at all for me except that these people happen to be the ones we’re talking about.
I’d appreciate it if an armchair shrink not diagnose me without knowing me.
It’s not the obligation of the state as a whole to kowtow to already free people who are feeling captured when it’s their own minds keeping them where they are.
This problem is already solved by the US Constitution which allows for them to move between state borders as they wish. It’s not on the whole of Oregon to satisfy them.
It sounds like we have very fundamentally different views of government.
If why take for granted that the state has no obligation to them, the question still stands: why not try to give them what they want?
Do you view these people as disrespectful of the state the state institutions? Is it a matter of setting precedent or distorting historical legacy? Is it that these people are inconveniencing other citizens by asking for what they want?
Then the media is utterly and in conspiracy theory fashion lying about the situation on a daily basis. I’m not saying that’s not the case, just that it’s not the message the rest of us are getting, maybe and including these counties wanting out.
The war on drugs put people in prison for emotional belief those people were morally inferior.
It rightly so should be abolished.
To be replaced with trained medical help, detox programs, and a conversation about morality not tethered to superstition, or black and white judgments.
But the fundies, acting out of emotion, prefer boxes.
It’s all emotion since humans are motivated by such. It’s the outcome that should be judged.
> To be replaced with trained medical help, detox programs, and a conversation about morality not tethered to superstition, or black and white judgments
Why can’t these programs exist while also having drugs be illegal?
Also it doesn’t help your position by using childish words like “fundies”, FYI. Keep that on Reddit please.
> Why can’t these programs exist while also having drugs be illegal?
How would you make that work? Consider if drugs are illegal, then getting medical help / detox requires admission of guilt. This seems like a fifth amendment problem.
How should a doctor know how to treat you if you don't tell them what caused the problems? Doctors don't just hear you list a bunch of things you are "feeling" as symptoms and then output a pill to take. They need to look at your overall health, wellbeing, symptoms, medicine you are taking, diet, etc.
You can't just show up to a hospital with crack or heroin withdrawl and be like "I don't feel well, please help me". They are going to ask why you don't feel well.
I'm talking just human nature here. If something is forbidden , illegal, subjectively immoral, etc. then it's difficult to both admit and seek help with that thing. I don't have any data to hand to back my assertion that criminalization negatively affects treatment, however if such data exists, then it would be less surprising (to me) than the inverse (criminalization makes it easier to get treatment).
Before the last generation or so, the elderly moved into family support roles.
Given that we’re bending over backwards to inflate the wealth of older investors, deflating the buying power of the younger generation in exchange, is enabling retirement a great idea?
It sounds amazing, right? But why must the youth honor the elder generations contracts at their expense?
Why must we “wait” until we can live a free adult life? Just kidding; it’s to prop up the choices of the past as I said.
There are embedded social norms that need a fundamental rethink.
Having an industry take care of our elderly does free younger generations from elder care responsibilities. It’s not a total loss for the younger generations. Elder care is really hard work.
But I do agree we shouldn’t be subsidizing early retirement so the wealthy elders can go on vacations.
Sometimes you don’t want the grandparents around. There’s a reason many people move out, ya know? The amount of shitty parents that don’t deserve a single thing from their children is massive.
And for that reason, we do need an industry built up around elderly care and facilitating independence from elders.
I was shocked to learn recently of the Singaporean legal concept of “parental maintenance” where parents are entitled to financial support from their adult children and can use the court system to enforce payment. Kind of like reverse child support or alimony.
Gross. Is there a way to get out of that legally? That’s a system ripe for abuse from abusive parents. Continue the abuse well past childhood and into adulthood. What a great country.
Parents pay for their kids often well into their 20s. Many of them also help with caring for their grandchildren. Seems just fair to ask for something in return in case of need? There is a similar concept in Germany where you do have to pay part of the nursing home fees if your parents require assistance and can’t live on their own.
Having a child is an informed choice; it's by all objective means a hugely unfair deal yet many people are opting into it for emotional (or hormonal) reasons. Not because they want to materially slave for their kids however, but because they love them and/or want to leave a legacy.
You chose to bring a child into this world. They owe you absolutely nothing for it. They'll help you if they feel love and/or obligation for you, just like I will keep supporting my widowed mother until her death.
But this shouldn't be expected by default -- or legally enforced. It should be a choice. We pay enough taxes as it is, surely the politicians can spare some change to care for our elders.
Who is going to let random old people let them take care of their kids then? Who is going to house them? You’d let random abusive parents take care of your kids and live with you?
you’re all over the map talking about grandparents moving out (which implied to me you meant blood relatives), now you’re on about an social wide norm of random old people.
But since you mention it, I DO have a “random old person” watching my kids right now as I live thousands of miles away from my biological parents for now.
There are daycares being busted for neglect and abuse so industrialization is hardly a solution to the problem of finding the right person.
I’m done with the patronizing attitude. Have a good day.
Edit: yes down vote me for not agreeing with you, and having a reasonable rebuttal. Weird flex, but ydy.
Beach real estate only massively inflates in california once, BTC only goes from .1 c to 50k once. These are once in a multigenerational outcomes for asset classes that we will be paying for, for decades. I will spend my 30s and 40s making in the top 1-3%, but still making just enough to afford a nice home in a nice area, with a wife that doesn't work, multiple kids, and nice things. Things people used to take for granted. Not the bare minimum lifestyle, but one would expect more from being so high up on the income totem pole.
It feels to me like I am working to keep the monetary policy afloat.
All of that was possible mostly due to a confluence of a few major things that happened at the right time - WW2 leaving US at a competitive advantage, people having lots of kids ensuring lots of economic growth, and automation and outsourcing multiplying productivity and keeping costs low, but at a slow enough pace that people could transition to better economic opportunities and a lot of the people being left behind were masked by sheer population growth since a lot of younger people were still moving up on the ladder.
And no automation was developed to turn people over in the hospital beds or change their bedpans or clean bathrooms.
You still can if you invest and then move out when you're 40 and a solid multimillionaire. Also, a not working wife isn't an "asset" but a huge liability: an equivalent of an earthquake leveling your house followed by a recession halving your assets and a major health issue that wastes half of your income.
It’s not. I was born and raised in the Bay Area, late 30s, have family in the city thats owned in the city proper since the 70s. My entire working career was in the peninsula, 10 of which in SOMA.
I don’t want to make this political it’s always been the same story ever since I was a kid. 1 - People who want to live here but priced out hoping to come at a “reasonable” price. 2 - Conservatives looking at the massive amount of talent, money, influence, power, and an intellectual power house of the world and finding any reason to possibly hate cause… we’ll I don’t know.
It’s fine. Nowhere is without issue, yes it’s gotten more expensive, but so has everyone salary. Dirty little secret to the outsiders, a lot of places are matching or competing with FAANG salaries, and even with cost of living being so high you make more in the BA then you would otherwise even after factoring out the roof over your head, in more then a few jobs by quite a healthy margin too
