Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1386088)	1/5/2023 1:34:59 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583677

"Counties can become a part of Idaho. State lines have been relocated many times in American history because it just takes an interstate compact between two state legislatures and approval of Congress. If the United States were governed as a single state, we wouldn’t have the opportunity for state governance to vary according to the culture of a local area. The purpose of having state lines is to allow this variance. The Oregon/Idaho border was established 163 years ago and is now outdated. It makes no sense in its current location because it doesn’t match the location of the cultural divide in Oregon. The Oregon/Washington border was updated in 1958. It’s time to move other borders. Areas that vote like Idaho does, and are economically healthy enough to be welcomed by Idaho are: eastern, southern, and most of central Oregon, southeastern Washington, and northeastern California. This proposal is different from creating a new state because it does not affect the balance of power in the US Senate. This means that it’s more likely to be approved by the Oregon Legislature. Our proposal is a win-win for the interests of each state legislature, and for the counties that get to switch states. Click the questions below to see why:"