Oregon Republicans flee and hide to delay vote, police sent to find them

[95thrifleman]

The problem is it's not isolated. In the UK politicians are trying to worm out of the brexit referendum, the tories changed their own rules to oust May because she dared to win her vote of no confidence.

Democracy is dead

[Cyclops]

Hey Infidel, do you think it's okay for politicians to literally run away and hide if they don't like what's being voted on?

Well I believe that there are standard parliamentary rules (and even the quaint broken systems of government in the US have something like them) that allows the Sergeant-at-Arms or equivalent officer to arrest members of the house (once summoned by Black Rod or the equivalent officer, I suppose White Rod in the US to keep the gammons happy) and force them into the chamber for a vote if they refuse.

There's a principle in the Westminster system that those elected to rule must rule, that is they must perform their duties as members of the chamber. No member can be elected against their will although the speaker is typically carried to his chair by other members to represent the unpleasantness of his role.

If you're elected and go on the run to prevent the passage of lawful measures I think deposition is the answer. The case of the Texas Eleven was a deeply shameful affair where a handful of Democrats tried to prevent the dismantling of a notorious Gerrymander in that state despite Republicans being elected with a clear majority and a definite mandate to change the corrupt old system.

However as deliberately obstructing the operation of government is an act against the Will of the People I could see why someone would consider this scurrilous behaviour (which is as dishonourable as it is corrupt) treason and demand the death penalty. However any sane discussion of this topic will no doubt cause and eruption of shrill cries of "Popper!" and "I'm not a Nazi, you're a Nazi" from the usual noise sources. It does serve the enemies of the US well to have such grit in the wheels of your democratic process.

[Infidel144]

I wrote:
Somehow I doubt that Katsumoto started similar threads in either case.

This was unfair of me. I apologize. Katsumoto is under no obligation to post threads criticizing various groups doing the same things.
What I should have said is that I doubt Katsumoto (and others) were of the same opinion when Democrats engaged in this behavior. I rather suspect it would have been defended or cheered on. It would be interesting to see who will to admit it.

All these moronic, partisan right wingers cheering on the republicans without understanding what it represents.

Which right wingers and what does it represent?

Wisconsin and Texas nothing, Governor Brown herself supported a Dem walkout in 2001 when she was still a state senator. I can't find a source suggesting that the police were used to forcibly bring back the missing Democrats in that situation, either.

Frankly, I don't see a problem with legislators opting to walk out of the legislature to deny quorum in an effort to stop legislation which their constituents do not want passed, and when the other side has a supermajority so all that they will accomplish by showing up to vote no is granting said other side the quorum to ram their legislation through. It's a valid, and definitely not illegal, legislative tactic that happens more often than many seem to think or know and is not a partisan thing, as demonstrated by the examples in Texas, Wisconsin & Oregon itself.

I did not know about the Oregon Democrats (or rather, now that you have mentioned it, there is some tingling there in the back of my senility effected memory, so perhaps forgot).
My position is much the same as with the Wisconsin and Texas cases. They can run, the others can try and get them back.

Reading what Katsumoto posted "The Constitution gives legislators the power to “compel” absent members to attend so that the Legislature can conduct its business."
I think he is misinterpreting it when he claims:
"Seems it could be unconstitutional according to the state unconstitution:"
It is not "unconstitutional" for legislators to absent themselves. It is 'constitutional' for their fellows to compel them (or attempt to) to return. Your "valid, and definitely not illegal, legislative tactic" is more likely.

The border from non criminal behavior to criminality is crossed at the moment, when a lawmaker declare:
I don't think its legal and not criminal for a normal citizen to threaten policemen, which want to arrest them, with violence.
Why should a local senator get a special treatment?

I might have been inclined to allow you that opinion and let it pass, if that is what you had said to begin with.
But you said: "They should all be arrested and sentenced to prison."
You did not say just the one Senator, you said they ALL should arrested and imprisoned.
Nazi Germany was pretty big on collective punishment, was it not?
(I'd insert some picture like you do, when you made a similar response in other discourse, but I find it rather difficult to do so (I need to copy what others are doing, or be walked through it, step by step).

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

IF those other senators join his statement, yes they should also be arrested and sentenced.

If this is a single man's statement and the others distance themself from it, then no.

If they work together with those self declared militia to resist the arrestment, its even more criminal.

I don't know, if those militias only want their five minutes in TV or start really an serious armed coup against the local government.

But armed resistance against an democratic elected government and their security forces is inacceptable.

[Infidel144]

IF those other senators join his statement, yes they should also be arrested and sentenced.

Should I take this as a retraction and clarification of your original position?

If this is a single man's statement and the others distance themself from it, then no.

What if it is just a single man's statement but the others don't "distance" themselves, they say nothing, should they still be arrested and imprisoned?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Its a clarification.

What happens to other gang members, which business is burglary, if one gang member carry gun with him and the other members know that, but say nothing, and then the gun man shoot a policemen or the owner?

All guilty of murder or only the one with the gun?

I'm really sure in many federal states the answer is all guilty.

[Infidel144]

What happens to other gang members, which business is burglary, if one gang member carry gun with him and the other members know that, but say nothing, and then the gun man shoot a policemen or the owner?

All guilty of murder or only the one with the gun?

I'm really sure in many federal states the answer is all guilty.

This seems like more changes to your previous statements/clarifications, with you adding additional elements (shooting/murder, actual action rather than words).

Should I take this to mean that the one senator who spoke, should only be arrested if he shoots someone, and the others should be arrested and imprisoned only if they did not condemn/disavow the one senator before he hypothetically shoots someone?

Or are you saying that the one senator should be arrested and imprisoned regardless, and the others should be compelled to condemn/disavow him, and if they fail to do so, be arrested and imprisoned, whether or not the one senator actually carries out any action?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

No, its a answer to your question, what should happen, if they do not distance themself from the one senator.

They must distance or at least show "No, armed resistance is inacceptable". If they do nothing of this kind to deescalate this, they are guilty of supporting his behavior.

They shall not get a special treatment for things, normal people would be undoubtly sentenced.

[Heathen Hammer]

The border from non criminal behavior to criminality is crossed at the moment, when a lawmaker declare:



I don't think its legal and not criminal for a normal citizen to threaten policemen, which want to arrest them, with violence.

Why should a local senator get a special treatment?

Because what he said didn't constitute a call for violence. US isn't like UK, when anyone can be arrested for pretty much anything, as "unlawful speech" can be applied to any statement, and usually to silence political worngthink. Telling police to go themselves isn't illegal in America.

[The spartan]

I wrote:
Somehow I doubt that Katsumoto started similar threads in either case.

This was unfair of me. I apologize. Katsumoto is under no obligation to post threads criticizing various groups doing the same things.
What I should have said is that I doubt Katsumoto (and others) were of the same opinion when Democrats engaged in this behavior. I rather suspect it would have been defended or cheered on. It would be interesting to see who will to admit it.

Which opinion is that? The exact opinion you are currently engaging in? You do see how, even if that were true, it doesn't exactly exonerate you from wrong doing, right?

[Infidel144]

Which behavior is that?

The behavior Democrats engaged in was 'fleeing' and 'hiding', as noted in previous posts, to delay or avoid legislative actions (Texas, Wisconsin and Oregon (see posts by Cyclops, Barry Goldwater and me above)).

The exact behavior you are currently engaging in?

I did not realize I was a state Senator currently in hiding to avoid a vote.

You do see how, even if that were true, it doesn't exactly exonerate you from wrong doing, right?

Your post makes no sense.

No, its a answer to your question, what should happen, if they do not distance themself from the one senator.


They must distance or at least show "No, armed resistance is inacceptable". If they do nothing of this kind to deescalate this, they are guilty of supporting his behavior.

So they should be arrested and imprisoned if they don't say 'this is unnacceptable' (or words to that effect)... even if there is no violence and it is all just words.
So back to the original, political opponents should be arrested and imprisoned. Where else did that happen...

[Heathen Hammer]

Its interesting how people protesting Democrats in Oregon are being labeled as "domestic terrorists", while far more violent Democrat counter-parts are still "resistance".
Also the fuel legislation is rather similar to Macron's attempt to push a similar policy in France, which resulted in famous Yellow Vest protests, which were the most important political event in Western Europe in the last few years. Newsflash: if you threaten livelihoods of significant part of population, cat ladies that voted for you won't save you from the backlash.

[the_mango55]

Funny how quickly the “blue lives matter” rhetoric vanished due to this.

The_donald subreddit had to be quarantined because of so many threats of violence against the police.

They only support police when they are killing minorities.

[The spartan]

The behavior Democrats engaged in was 'fleeing' and 'hiding', as noted in previous posts, to delay or avoid legislative actions (Texas, Wisconsin and Oregon (see posts by Cyclops, Barry Goldwater and me above)).

I did not realize I was a state Senator currently in hiding to avoid a vote.

Your post makes no sense.

No, I mean the behavior of excusing this kind of political gimmick as acceptable. You are simultaneous calling Democrats wrong for presumably defending Democrats for doing so in Texas while also defending Republicans in doing so in Oregon. Either it was wrong when the Democrats did it and you are a hypocrite now with Republicans doing it, or you think it is legitimate and Democrats were right to do so in Texas.

[Infidel144]

No, I mean the behavior of excusing this kind of political gimmick as acceptable. You are simultaneous calling Democrats wrong for presumably defending Democrats for doing so in Texas while also defending Republicans in doing so in Oregon. Either it was wrong when the Democrats did it and you are a hypocrite now with Republicans doing it, or you think it is legitimate and Democrats were right to do so in Texas.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote.
I did not say it was wrong or right in either case. I said "My position is much the same as with the Wisconsin and Texas cases. They can run, the others can try and get them back." See my reply to Barry Goldwater. (In fact I actually went back to various forums I used to participate in (or attempted to) to find my commentary on the Texas incident, and the only thing I could find was me refusing to engage on the 'fleeing' issue, as I was arguing about the redistricting).
What I did call out here was those saying it is wrong for Republican's to do this, if they did not say the same when Democrats did it or would have defended Democrats doing it.

[The spartan]

What I did call out here was those saying it is wrong for Republican's to do this, if they did not say the same when Democrats did it or would have defended Democrats doing it.

So you were just throwing out a whataboutism for the sake of it? I mean, hypocrites will be hypocrites, but the important part of this topic is gimmick political maneuvers like this are toxic and shouldn't be encouraged.

[Heathen Hammer]

Its not whataboutism if it is in a context of discussion of common and bipartisan practice.

[The spartan]

Yeah it is, whataboutisms don't have to be irrelevant to anything being discussed. The order of events went as such: OP brings up some lame thing Republican senators did; Infidel defends the actions of the senators by saying it isn't against the law and accusing Katsumoto of purposely not making such a thread about some other time this has happened with Democrats fleeing the vote. Whataboutism. What we should really be doing is discussing whether doing this political maneuver is something good to do in the long run.

[Infidel144]

Yeah it is, whataboutisms don't have to be irrelevant to anything being discussed. The order of events went as such: OP brings up some lame thing Republican senators did; Infidel defends the actions of the senators by saying it isn't against the law and accusing Katsumoto of purposely not making such a thread about some other time this has happened with Democrats fleeing the vote. Whataboutism. What we should really be doing is discussing whether doing this political maneuver is something good to do in the long run.

You know when you claimed I was:
"simultaneous calling Democrats wrong for presumably defending Democrats for doing so in Texas while also defending Republicans in doing so in Oregon. Either it was wrong when the Democrats did it and you are a hypocrite now with Republicans doing it, or you think it is legitimate and Democrats were right to do so in Texas."
And I pointed out in the above post:
"I think you need to re-read what I wrote." Because what I said was: "My position is much the same as with the Wisconsin and Texas cases. They can run, the others can try and get them back."

You should have re-read the thread.

Carmen Sylvia said they should all be arrested and imprisoned. I asked Carmen Sylva if it was illegal. I attacked Carmen Sylva for wanting to imprison people who did not break the law.

If you had read the thread, or paid attention, you would also notice that I did not introduce the fact that Democrats have done this. Cyclops did ("This has happened before, some Texas Dems went into hiding to prevent the undoing of some Gerrymander or other longstanding injustice." Post 6).
Is that whataboutism?

And I did not introduce 'hypocrisy' to the thread. 95thrifleman did ("What amuses me about all this are the partisans making out the Republicans are heroes looking after the minority. I know exactly how they would spin this if it was Democrats hiding to stop Republicans passing legislation." Post 11).
Is that 'whataboutism?

(Odd, I seem to have entered through doors that others opened...)

I already, and without prompting, apologized for saying "Somehow I doubt that Katsumoto started similar threads in either case."
Though I did say that I doubted he or others would have been of the same opinion when Democrats did this. And I still do.

But since you are, despite my suggestion to re-read (or perhaps just read and pay attention), again attempting to mis-represent the thread and what I have done here, it is obvious that you are, yet again, arguing in bad faith.

[Cookiegod]

They should lose their seats (and any income related to it) and there should be local re-elections.

The minimum participants rule is a good one, so that factions don't sneak legislation through that is counter to the majority, but without penalties for the abusers it becomes a loophole that is bound to be exploited.