Conservatives supported this rule to punish those who attempted to manipulate sessions by not showing up. When the rule applies to them, they pretend they are victims of some kind.
The entire time the walk-out was happening, they told the media the rule wouldn’t apply to them and they intended to run again. It was pure arrogance as it happened. And it’s pure arrogance now as they claim their rule shouldn’t apply to them.
Fuck conservatives. A conservative is incapable of honesty. Every word they utter is deception or manipulation. Every word.
Bad-faith Republicans in state government: And of course all the Real Americans are happy with this principled stand that we're taking, it's so good to see someone who's willing to go to bat for the rights of honest working people--
we are deeply disturbed by the chilling impact this decision will have to crush dissent
Give me a fucking break. As a legislator, you have no shortage of ways to dissent including access to media, the ability to speak on the floor of the legislature, and the ability to vote on legislation. What you can’t do, if you want to keep your job is not show up for work every time you know you’re going to lose a vote so that the legislature can’t do business.
“But that’s all just Portland voters! All the rest us of didn’t want that!” - My idiot father. Yeah dude, Portland is most of us. Your vote isn’t worth more just because you live around less people.
It’s not even true. There are 3 million registered voters in Oregon, of whom 565k are in Portland (well, Multnomah). While we lean very heavily D, most of the registered D’s in the state are elsewhere.
“Portland” is usually used as shorthand for Clackamas/Multnomah/Washington counties, which are about half the states population overall. Shouldn’t be shocking that half the states population does rather heavily influence how the state is run though. Did folks expect Harney county (10,135 sq mi, with 7,515 people) to be the big decider? C’mon now.
Surprisingly, even if you include all 3 counties you’re still only about 40% of the registered voters–although you are now at about 50% of the registered D’s. Meaning the rest of the state skews Republican but not by that much.
The amendment says a lawmaker is not allowed to run “for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.” The senators claimed the amendment meant they could seek another term, since a senator’s term ends in January while elections are held the previous November.
What a slimey disingenuous BS argument. They are knowingly trying to subvert the law specifically aimed at their behavior while pretending it’s SOMEHOW the will of the voters to ignore them.
If you missed more than 10 days of work at any job, it’s likely you’ll be fired, so they can just pull themselves up by the boot-straps and find another job.
The GOP loves whining and not doing their job. These people are being paid to represent people, by wilfully abusing quorum to stall the process they are doing their constituents a major disservice.
Filibuster if you want to stand there and defend against change you disagree with, but using absence as a political weapon is slimy and low effort.
Just to clarify, I was not referring to anybody as a Nazi, I simply noted, that the method of blocking votes and using “the system” against itself is not new. And when the methods someone uses have been deployed by the literal original nazis, then I find this noteworthy.
I agree in general. The term is used as a strong word to clarify someone’s stand point, but besides cheers from within the own bubble and resistance from. The other bubble, nothing happens. The bubbles won’t be dissolved that way. I the end, I think, globally, there is no fight “left VS right” but democrats VS autocrats (not referring to the democratic party here) , and whoever values liberty should stand together against autocrats independently of the party someone prefers.
I disagree, not because I think they have an agenda which may or may not yield similar results, but because the majority of Republicans aren’t Nazis. They do not want to extend the “Lebensraum” for Germans, they blame and marginalized different minorities and they are not running around in Nazi uniforms (again, the majority). That doesn’t make them in principle any better, but Nazis were as a matter of fact in Europe…
There have been plenty of autocracies before, during and after Nazi Germany, Nazis were simply the term that stuck. Call them by what they really are: autocrats. They are unable to deny this. If you call them Nazi, the counter argument is obvious: we can’t be Nazis, because we. Didn’t kill millions of people in concentration camps(yet). Calling anybody a Nazi does not fulfill any purpose besides getting applause from people in the same bubble as you’re already in. That’s my point. Feel free to disagree.
I’d say that it’s not a good path to tread to have courts deciding who can and can’t be on the ballot, however, in this particular case, it was put to the voters, and these guys knew the rule when they broke it, so c’est la vie
As for their argument, I’d say go with it… Let them run, let them get elected, then bar them for the term… That’s actually how the wording works out… Theyre correct that they can technically run, but it’s pretty specific about being unable to seve the term.
Fuck around and let a district go unrepresented for a term because legislators wanna play the “well ackshually” game, and the voters will sort that shit right out.
The problem with that is it denies all of the people in that district their right to representation. It’s not fair to punish people just because voters were dumb enough to elect someone who can’t actually serve. The reasonable thing to do is ban unqualified candidates from the ballot. Otherwise it’s like electing a dead person, they are going to have to hold a special election or appoint someone or do whatever the legal process is to fill the vacancy ASAP.
The other major news story about courts deciding who can and cannot be on the ballot is regarding the 14th amendment. @corsicanguppy was likely referring to that, and to @aelwero
I’ve often wondered if this should be the punishment for failing to draw up constitutionally legal district maps. If a state can’t figure out how to not gerrymander the heck out of itself, deny them represention for a term while they sort it out. Arguably the people elected under such maps don’t reflect the true will of the people anyways
Add comment