Oregon Republicans facing arrest

[San Lumen]

And then the entire state is hurt by not having a budget, and state agencies can't function but those roads will get paved by magic and other government agencies will run just fine. They can just have acting heads.

Email your legislator if they are a Republican and tell them to emulate this and kindly share their response

Well that's just too fucking bad. Maybe the Oregon Democrats should try not being shitty human beings and respect the democratic process.

Oregon had an election and they chose democrats to run the government but the votes of someone in Portland should matter less than someone in rural Oregon. Climate change is an emergency. if an industry can't adapt in thirty years too bad.

[The Two Jerseys]

Well that's just too fucking bad. Maybe the Oregon Democrats should try not being shitty human beings and respect the democratic process.

Oregon had an election and they chose democrats to run the government but the votes of someone in Portland should matter less than someone in rural Oregon.

Oregon had a referendum and they voted against giving drivers licenses to illegals but the opinions of the entire populace should matter less than a handful of Democrats in Salem.

Climate change is an emergency.

Except it's not. The Democrats just call it one because they want to prevent the people from voting on the bill.

if an industry can't adapt in thirty years too bad.

Funny how the Dems can implement "emergency" measures over a 30 year period, but they can't wait a year and a half to hold a referendum.

[Scomagia]

It isn't "not respecting an election". It's not respecting the bill itself and taking lawful means to kill it.

All parties should break quorum when necessary.

How about next session they simply dont show up at all and the majority party can't get anything at all done?

Because that would be terrible for their job security, for starters.

[Shaggtopia]

It should be done by all parties when the need arises.

No it should not. Simply vote no and respect the outcome of an election

Additionally there is an Abstain option. They literally refused to do their jobs. That's not debatable it's simple fact. They didn't show up for work, they're to my knowledge still getting paid for the job they where elected to but instead elected not to do. If I where to suddenly elect to not do my job i'd be fired and put the entire business in jeapordy for my failure to do so. That's true if the dems where to do it too. Don't defend shitty politicians that think they are above the laws they make, either have some conviction and go down on record opposing or don't not showing up for work as a dramatic stunt should be treated as the childish undermining of the process that it is regardless of the political ideology that's backing it. It's like Trump shitting down the government because the dems won't pay for his dumbass ineffective wall. They have literally one goddamn job and every time they pull shit like this it makes me wonder why we the people pay for their baffoonary season after season. Then I remember it's generally apathy mixed with an unhealthy Us Vs, Them team sport mentality that some politicians *cough* McConnell *COUGH* cultivate for exactly these self serving reasons.

[San Lumen]

Oregon had an election and they chose democrats to run the government but the votes of someone in Portland should matter less than someone in rural Oregon.

Oregon had a referendum and they voted against giving drivers licenses to illegals but the opinions of the entire populace should matter less than a handful of Democrats in Salem.

Climate change is an emergency.

Except it's not. The Democrats just call it one because they want to prevent the people from voting on the bill.

if an industry can't adapt in thirty years too bad.

Funny how the Dems can implement "emergency" measures over a 30 year period, but they can't wait a year and a half to hold a referendum.

And that referendum was respected. You failed to answer the question of why someone in Portland should matter less than someone in rural Oregon. In an election you vote for people to make decisions for you.

How about next session they simply dont show up at all and the majority party can't get anything at all done?

Because that would be terrible for their job security, for starters.

With the exception of two or three districts they are too Republican for them to lose. They could not show up at all and they would still be elected

[Scomagia]

Oregon had a referendum and they voted against giving drivers licenses to illegals but the opinions of the entire populace should matter less than a handful of Democrats in Salem.

Except it's not. The Democrats just call it one because they want to prevent the people from voting on the bill.

Funny how the Dems can implement "emergency" measures over a 30 year period, but they can't wait a year and a half to hold a referendum.

And that referendum was respected. You failed to answer the question of why someone in Portland should matter less than someone in rural Oregon. In an election you vote for people to make decisions for you.

Because that would be terrible for their job security, for starters.

With the exception of two or three districts they are too Republican for them to lose. They could not show up at all and they would still be elected

You have no data to support that claim.

There would be nothing stopping rival conservatives from running for those seats, as Republicans or third party. If the incumbents pulled quorum breaking over nothing at all they could lose their seats.

[San Lumen]

And that referendum was respected. You failed to answer the question of why someone in Portland should matter less than someone in rural Oregon. In an election you vote for people to make decisions for you.



With the exception of two or three districts they are too Republican for them to lose. They could not show up at all and they would still be elected

You have no data to support that claim.

There would be nothing stopping rival conservatives from running for those seats, as Republicans or third party. If the incumbents pulled quorum breaking over nothing at all they could lose their seats.

I looked at election results. There is no way they would lose a general election except for two or three seats.

Go to ourcampaigns. You can find the data.

[Scomagia]

You have no data to support that claim.

There would be nothing stopping rival conservatives from running for those seats, as Republicans or third party. If the incumbents pulled quorum breaking over nothing at all they could lose their seats.

I looked at election results. There is no way they would lose a general election except for two or three seats.

Go to ourcampaigns. You can find the data.

Against a Dem, sure. They could lose to another Republican or third party candidate, like I said. If they quorum break for no reason, their constituents probably won't be impressed. A rival Republican could then steal the seat. It's not complicated. That's why quorum breaking is not a very usual practice. It's narrowly useful and difficult to use without pissing of your constituents.

[The Two Jerseys]

Oregon had a referendum and they voted against giving drivers licenses to illegals but the opinions of the entire populace should matter less than a handful of Democrats in Salem.

Except it's not. The Democrats just call it one because they want to prevent the people from voting on the bill.

Funny how the Dems can implement "emergency" measures over a 30 year period, but they can't wait a year and a half to hold a referendum.

And that referendum was respected.

Passing another bill allowing illegals to have drivers licenses with added language that prevents it from going to a referendum isn't respecting the results of the referendum.

You failed to answer the question of why someone in Portland should matter less than someone in rural Oregon. In an election you vote for people to make decisions for you.

You failed to answer the question of why the people of Oregon should matter less than the Oregon Democratic Party. In a referendum you make decisions instead of your legislators.

[Salandriagado]

And would the Republicans honor a referendum if the state voted to implement the new enviromental standards? Fact remains the Republicans ran away from their jobs, and have set a precident for other parties to pull an identical feat in the future.

They set no precedent. This is already a well established political maneuver.

No, threatening to murder police officers isn't.

[San Lumen]

And that referendum was respected.

Passing another bill allowing illegals to have drivers licenses with added language that prevents it from going to a referendum isn't respecting the results of the referendum.

You failed to answer the question of why someone in Portland should matter less than someone in rural Oregon. In an election you vote for people to make decisions for you.

You failed to answer the question of why the people of Oregon should matter less than the Oregon Democratic Party. In a referendum you make decisions instead of your legislators.

You do understand they were elected to office correct?

[Claorica]

They set no precedent. This is already a well established political maneuver.

No, threatening to murder police officers isn't.

In carrying out the wishes of a Governor whose office refused to rule out the possibility of detaining them to force their return to the Senate, those police officers weren't actually law enforcement but rather the brownshirted thugs of a power-hungry dictator.

[Salandriagado]

No, threatening to murder police officers isn't.

In carrying out the wishes of a Governor whose office refused to rule out the possibility of detaining them to force their return to the Senate, those police officers weren't actually law enforcement but rather the brownshirted thugs of a power-hungry dictator.

No, they're police officers following the lawful instructions of their elected superiors.

Even if your bullshit was true, threatening to murder them is still a fucking crime.

[Claorica]

In carrying out the wishes of a Governor whose office refused to rule out the possibility of detaining them to force their return to the Senate, those police officers weren't actually law enforcement but rather the brownshirted thugs of a power-hungry dictator.

No, they're police officers following the lawful instructions of their elected superiors.

Even if your bullshit was true, threatening to murder them is still a fucking crime.

Please do point to me where not being present for an Oregon State Senate session is an arrestable crime? Otherwise, the instructions, which included the possibility of arrest or detention, weren't lawful.

[Salandriagado]

No, they're police officers following the lawful instructions of their elected superiors.

Even if your bullshit was true, threatening to murder them is still a fucking crime.

Please do point to me where not being present for an Oregon State Senate session is an arrestable crime? Otherwise, the instructions, which included the possibility of arrest or detention, weren't lawful.

Literally in the state's fucking constitution.

[Claorica]

Please do point to me where not being present for an Oregon State Senate session is an arrestable crime? Otherwise, the instructions, which included the possibility of arrest or detention, weren't lawful.

Literally in the state's fucking constitution.

Glad you brought up the State's Constitution, because it doesn't have anything about arresting lawmakers for not showing up, it DOES however have something protecting lawmakers while their houses are in session.

Article IV, Section 9, of the Constitution of the State of Oregon:

Senators and Representatives in all cases, except for treason, felony, or breaches of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislative Assembly, and in going to and returning from the same; and shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the Legislative Assembly, nor during the fifteen days next before the commencement thereof: Nor shall a member for words uttered in debate in either house, be questioned in any other place.–

[Scomagia]

They set no precedent. This is already a well established political maneuver.

No, threatening to murder police officers isn't.

Clearly that isn't what we were talking about. Don't interrupt conversations if you haven't been paying attention.

[Shaggtopia]

I want everybody defending the Republicans that didn't show up to work to not show up to work. Then use whatever half baked arguments you've come up with for why that's totally an okay thing on your boss when they try firing you. It's a political stunt just to see how much We the People will let them get away with and still pay for their flights, mortgages and meals.

[Scomagia]

I want everybody defending the Republicans that didn't show up to work to not show up to work. Then use whatever half baked arguments you've come up with for why that's totally an okay thing on your boss when they try firing you. It's a political stunt just to see how much We the People will let them get away with and still pay for their flights, mortgages and meals.

Yes, clearly parlimentary procedure and a 9 to 5 in an office are totally the same thing. Totally.

Quorum breaking is a useful tool. It's also self limiting and, unlike what some ignorant people are saying, it is, in fact, the politicians still doing their job.

[Ors Might]

I want everybody defending the Republicans that didn't show up to work to not show up to work. Then use whatever half baked arguments you've come up with for why that's totally an okay thing on your boss when they try firing you. It's a political stunt just to see how much We the People will let them get away with and still pay for their flights, mortgages and meals.

Not remotely comparable but okay.

[Salandriagado]

No, threatening to murder police officers isn't.

Clearly that isn't what we were talking about. Don't interrupt conversations if you haven't been paying attention.

Except that it is what these particular Republicans have done.

[Ors Might]

Clearly that isn't what we were talking about. Don't interrupt conversations if you haven't been paying attention.

Except that it is what these particular Republicans have done.

Correct me it I’m wrong but only one Republican did that.

[Salandriagado]

Except that it is what these particular Republicans have done.

Correct me it I’m wrong but only one Republican did that.

If you cooperate with someone does a thing as part of what you're doing, and don't criticise them, or disclaim your relationship with them, or rebuke them, or even state any kind of disagreement with them, you're tacitly approving of the thing.

[Scomagia]

Correct me it I’m wrong but only one Republican did that.

If you cooperate with someone does a thing as part of what you're doing, and don't criticise them, or disclaim your relationship with them, or rebuke them, or even state any kind of disagreement with them, you're tacitly approving of the thing.

Nope.

[Scomagia]

Clearly that isn't what we were talking about. Don't interrupt conversations if you haven't been paying attention.

Except that it is what these particular Republicans have done.

Nope. One guy did. And again, it isn't what was being discussed by us.