Oregon Republicans facing arrest

[The Two Jerseys]

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 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?

You do understand that being a "representative" doesn't give you license to ignore the instructions that you were given, correct?

[Akaran Islands]

There's obviously something going on when you keep asking the same asinine question that has already been answered. You've been told why they won't just do it again.

No its simply not respecting the outcome of an election. They could simply vote no and then campaign on how bad the bill was and those evil people in the Willamette Valley are ought to get them.

The Republicans are completely justified in doing so. This climate bill would kill industry for the rural areas of the state, and is mainly being passed due to Portland having a ton of power over the state. If the Republicans voted on the bill, it would be passed and completely screw over their constituents. What the Republicans are doing is a form of protest, and the democrats did exactly the same thing for a bill they didn't like in the early 2000s. Violence against the police by the Republicans and militias is completely justified, don't forget that the reason we have the second amendment is to be able to stand up to our government.

Portland gets the amount of representation it does because of its populations. You support elected officials and militias being violent towards a government elected in a free and fair election?

By your logic how about they not show up at all and those evil people in the Willamette Valley home to almost 65 percent of the state get dictated too by the minority

I am aware that Portland has such representation because of its large population, but what is best for Portland isn't best for the entire state. "Free and Fair Elections" means very little to people who have virtually no say in their government. Are you going to tell the Irish that they shouldn't have a country because the majority of Britain was against them separating?

[San Lumen]

No its simply not respecting the outcome of an election. They could simply vote no and then campaign on how bad the bill was and those evil people in the Willamette Valley are ought to get them.
Portland gets the amount of representation it does because of its populations. You support elected officials and militias being violent towards a government elected in a free and fair election?

By your logic how about they not show up at all and those evil people in the Willamette Valley home to almost 65 percent of the state get dictated too by the minority

I am aware that Portland has such representation because of its large population, but what is best for Portland isn't best for the entire state. "Free and Fair Elections" means very little to people who have virtually no say in their government. Are you going to tell the Irish that they shouldn't have a country because the majority of Britain was against them separating?

70 percent of the population is in the Willamette Valley. Why should a minority get to dictate policy and who controls the legislature and wins statewide elections?

[Diopolis]

I am aware that Portland has such representation because of its large population, but what is best for Portland isn't best for the entire state. "Free and Fair Elections" means very little to people who have virtually no say in their government. Are you going to tell the Irish that they shouldn't have a country because the majority of Britain was against them separating?

70 percent of the population is in the Willamette Valley. Why should a minority get to dictate policy and who controls the legislature and wins statewide elections?

Why should the minority have no protections against the majority destroying their livelihood and way of life.

[Akaran Islands]

I am aware that Portland has such representation because of its large population, but what is best for Portland isn't best for the entire state. "Free and Fair Elections" means very little to people who have virtually no say in their government. Are you going to tell the Irish that they shouldn't have a country because the majority of Britain was against them separating?

70 percent of the population is in the Willamette Valley. Why should a minority get to dictate policy and who controls the legislature and wins statewide elections?

I'm not saying they should dictate policy, I'm saying they have a right to resist legislature imposed on them by people who do not represent them which will completely destroy their livelihoods

[Akaran Islands]

I'm not saying they should dictate policy, I'm saying they have a right to resist legislature imposed on them by people who do not represent them which will completely destroy their livelihoods

That's not in the State Constitution.

What you're saying is only applicable on a state level.

You'd have to abolish the state and the system for centuries built around the state, and the constitution, but that would be undemocratic and fittingly, the Democratic Party would be unwilling to do that.

The United States was litteraly founded on the idea of not letting the majority decide laws which greatly affected a minority that little to no representation.

[Akaran Islands]

The United States was litteraly founded on the idea of not letting the majority decide laws which greatly affected a minority that little to no representation.

What about "State's Rights"?

While States have a right to persue their own governence, the people of that state also have a right to persue self determination. The second amendment is in place for people to resist what they feel is unjust governance, and the United States constitutional trumps all state constitutions

[The Two Jerseys]

70 percent of the population is in the Willamette Valley. Why should a minority get to dictate policy and who controls the legislature and wins statewide elections?

Why should the minority have no protections against the majority destroying their livelihood and way of life.

Ooh, ooh, I know: FrEe AnD fAiR eLeCtIoNs!

By which logic, women in Missouri and Georgia should respect the outcome of the election and just accept the fact that they're going to jail if they get an abortion.

[San Lumen]

70 percent of the population is in the Willamette Valley. Why should a minority get to dictate policy and who controls the legislature and wins statewide elections?

I'm not saying they should dictate policy, I'm saying they have a right to resist legislature imposed on them by people who do not represent them which will completely destroy their livelihoods

Those people where also elected in a free and fair election. There are more of them because the area they are from has more population. That is not imposing anything. They could run better candidates or try to reduce the margins in the most populous area of the state. If they can't do that they won't have the executive branch offices.

The laws passed by the legislature apply to to all counties not just some of them.

[Scomagia]

I'm not saying they should dictate policy, I'm saying they have a right to resist legislature imposed on them by people who do not represent them which will completely destroy their livelihoods

Those people where also elected in a free and fair election. There are more of them because the area they are from has more population. That is not imposing anything. They could run better candidates or try to reduce the margins in the most populous area of the state. If they can't do that they won't have the executive branch offices.

The laws passed by the legislature apply to to all counties not just some of them.

You must be against sanctuary cities and state drug legalization too, yes?

[San Lumen]

Those people where also elected in a free and fair election. There are more of them because the area they are from has more population. That is not imposing anything. They could run better candidates or try to reduce the margins in the most populous area of the state. If they can't do that they won't have the executive branch offices.

The laws passed by the legislature apply to to all counties not just some of them.

You must be against sanctuary cities and state drug legalization too, yes?

Do you even know what a sanctuary city is? if state wants to legalize drugs by all means do so. i have no problem with marijuana legalization.

You also did not address my point

[Akaran Islands]

I'm not saying they should dictate policy, I'm saying they have a right to resist legislature imposed on them by people who do not represent them which will completely destroy their livelihoods

Those people where also elected in a free and fair election. There are more of them because the area they are from has more population. That is not imposing anything. They could run better candidates or try to reduce the margins in the most populous area of the state. If they can't do that they won't have the executive branch offices.

The laws passed by the legislature apply to to all counties not just some of them.

This is like the third time you've repeated this. People who live a very different lifestyle than you do setting laws that affect mainly your lifestyle in which you have virtually no say in things is imposing. If the US were to combine with China and a vote was held to change the used everywhere to Chinese and it passed, even though the election was free and fair it would still be imposing the will of the Chinese people upon the American people, even though the Chinese far outnumber Americans. And as such, the Americans would have every right to resist such a law.

[Scomagia]

You must be against sanctuary cities and state drug legalization too, yes?

Do you even know what a sanctuary city is? if state wants to legalize drugs by all means do so. i have no problem with marijuana legalization.

You also did not address my point

But those things run against the Federal laws created by lawfully elected legislators. They're undemocratic and not respecting free and fair elections, according to your logic.

[San Lumen]

Those people where also elected in a free and fair election. There are more of them because the area they are from has more population. That is not imposing anything. They could run better candidates or try to reduce the margins in the most populous area of the state. If they can't do that they won't have the executive branch offices.

The laws passed by the legislature apply to to all counties not just some of them.

This is like the third time you've repeated this. People who live a very different lifestyle than you do setting laws that affect mainly your lifestyle in which you have virtually no say in things is imposing. If the US were to combine with China and a vote was held to change the used everywhere to Chinese and it passed, even though the election was free and fair it would still be imposing the will of the Chinese people upon the American people, even though the Chinese far outnumber Americans. And as such, the Americans would have every right to resist such a law.

What are you suggesting that those from the valley not be allowed to vote on bills that affect rural counties or only able to pass laws that affect the majority of the state? or somehow the rural counties vote count more for statewide elections?

[Akaran Islands]

This is like the third time you've repeated this. People who live a very different lifestyle than you do setting laws that affect mainly your lifestyle in which you have virtually no say in things is imposing. If the US were to combine with China and a vote was held to change the used everywhere to Chinese and it passed, even though the election was free and fair it would still be imposing the will of the Chinese people upon the American people, even though the Chinese far outnumber Americans. And as such, the Americans would have every right to resist such a law.

What are you suggesting that those in the valley not be allowed to vote on bills that affect rural counties or only able to pass laws that affect the majority of the state? or somehow the rural counties vote count more for statewide elections?

No, I'm saying that people have the right to protest and resist laws which affect them where people like them had little to no say in whether or not it was past. There are many obvious solutions to other than "don't let Portland have any say" such as a compromise between rural and urban areas on serious matter like these.

[San Lumen]

What are you suggesting that those in the valley not be allowed to vote on bills that affect rural counties or only able to pass laws that affect the majority of the state? or somehow the rural counties vote count more for statewide elections?

No, I'm saying that people have the right to protest and resist laws which affect them where people like them had little to no say in whether or not it was past. There are many obvious solutions to other than "don't let Portland have any say" such as a compromise between rural and urban areas on serious matter like these.

They can vote no on the bill. There are there to represent not obstruct.

What would your solution be to this supposed imposition by the majority of the state?

You are aware of how an election works for both the legislature and statewide offices correct?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What are you suggesting that those in the valley not be allowed to vote on bills that affect rural counties or only able to pass laws that affect the majority of the state? or somehow the rural counties vote count more for statewide elections?

No, I'm saying that people have the right to protest and resist laws which affect them where people like them had little to no say in whether or not it was past. There are many obvious solutions to other than "don't let Portland have any say" such as a compromise between rural and urban areas on serious matter like these.

In which case they availed themselves of the only tactic they had, which is used by both parties. And that was to not show up for quorum. And of course, the state used its own tool, which is permitted by law, which was to have law enforcement arrest them and bring them back. Such is the way a state's house can function. At central gov't it is done too.

[Akaran Islands]

No, I'm saying that people have the right to protest and resist laws which affect them where people like them had little to no say in whether or not it was past. There are many obvious solutions to other than "don't let Portland have any say" such as a compromise between rural and urban areas on serious matter like these.

In which case they availed themselves of the only tactic they had, which is used by both parties. And that was to not show up for quorum. And of course, the state used its own tool, which is permitted by law, which was to have law enforcement arrest them and bring them back. Such is the way a state's house can function. At central gov't it is done too.

While the state has a right to use law enforcement, this walkout is a protest, which is protected by the first amendment. Action by the police would be a violation of first amendment rights

[San Lumen]

In which case they availed themselves of the only tactic they had, which is used by both parties. And that was to not show up for quorum. And of course, the state used its own tool, which is permitted by law, which was to have law enforcement arrest them and bring them back. Such is the way a state's house can function. At central gov't it is done too.

While the state has a right to use law enforcement, this walkout is a protest, which is protected by the first amendment. Action by the police would be a violation of first amendment rights

The governor was within her rights to send the state police for them. The constitution gives her that right.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

In which case they availed themselves of the only tactic they had, which is used by both parties. And that was to not show up for quorum. And of course, the state used its own tool, which is permitted by law, which was to have law enforcement arrest them and bring them back. Such is the way a state's house can function. At central gov't it is done too.

While the state has a right to use law enforcement, this walkout is a protest, which is protected by the first amendment. Action by the police would be a violation of first amendment rights

That's the procedure when this happens.

They're back now, bill didn't pass for now. It can be addressed at a later date.

[San Lumen]

While the state has a right to use law enforcement, this walkout is a protest, which is protected by the first amendment. Action by the police would be a violation of first amendment rights

That's the procedure when this happens.

They're back now, bill didn't pass for now. It can be addressed at a later date.

and more than likely it will be. If Republicans lose two more seats in the state senate net year they will be irrelevant

[Akaran Islands]

While the state has a right to use law enforcement, this walkout is a protest, which is protected by the first amendment. Action by the police would be a violation of first amendment rights

The governor was within her rights to send the state police for them. The constitution gives her that right.

No she actually isn't, as they have broken no laws.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The governor was within her rights to send the state police for them. The constitution gives her that right.

No she actually isn't, as they have broken no laws.

Yes, the state constitution gives her that right and yes, they can be arrested for failure to appear. They weren't, however, charged with anything.

[San Lumen]

The governor was within her rights to send the state police for them. The constitution gives her that right.

No she actually isn't, as they have broken no laws.

The state police were therefore following an illegal order? The state constitution says the majority party can compel legislators to attend.

also please answer this: The legislators are free to vote no on the bill. There are there to represent not obstruct.

What would your solution be to this supposed imposition by seventy percent of the state?

You are aware of how an election works for both the legislature and statewide offices correct?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, the state constitution gives her that right and yes, they can be arrested for failure to appear. They weren't, however, charged with anything.

Yes, the state constitution gives her that right and yes, they can be arrested for failure to appear. They weren't, however, charged with anything.

She acted legally.

And the constitution was written with anti-gun control people in charge, so they can't cry it being rigged against them.

Er, that's something I've already said. She indeed acted legally.