My guess? Because Democrats in general are weak. Weak weak weak. She’ll be afraid of provoking their supporters and dealing with the inevitable right-wing putsch-back (sp? :p), so she’ll do as little as possible, which will ultimately embolden her opposition.
I am not a conservative but I think it’s because many feel they are the superior, authentic, appointed by God people and everyone else is an interloper. And now they have to live in a society run by people they consider inferior, inauthentic outsiders. Climate change isn’t the issue, these same senators were threatening to walk out over bills on vaccination and gun control.
White militia groups have a lot on common with Muslim extremist groups. It’s the same mentality at root just expressed in different cultures. A group of fundamentalist extremists who think Dog is on their side are trying to protect their own status in a rapidly changing world are enraged that people they consider inauthentic inferiors are invading ‘their’ society and calling the shots.
I hope that the Democrats have the bills all drafted up and ready to go on those other things, and force them all through as soon as a couple of the coward are rounded up and dragged into the Capitol Building.
I haven’t been in contact with them for some time, but I have acquaintances (Og knows, not friends) on the fringes of the militia movement; and from them I’ve learned that the highest possible government official is the duly instituted* county sheriff. So the state police/troopers/whatever don’t have any particular standing. In fact, since posse comitatus makes the militia an auxiliary of the aforementioned county sheriff, they have more standing than the so-called state “officials.”
If pressed for a rationale, they’ll say that since the Constitution wasn’t properly ratified, the Articles of Confederation still apply. Or maybe that the AOC ceased to be in effect when the Constitution was(n’t) ratified. And just typing that made my head hurt.
“Duly instituted” = “Agrees with me.”
The Constitution wasn’t properly ratified? That’s a new one to me. So, the last ~250 years of American history has been one big charade? Quite the procedure error.
Is the objection to the Republicans playing hide and seek (which Democrats have done before,) or to the militia protecting the Republican legislators (which, to my knowledge, Democrats have not done?)
More the militia thing. I really dislike the GOP leaving the state, but both sides do that. However joining an armed terrorist group and threatening to kill cops is a new low.
Society really needs to be honest about the risk white nationalists pose to our democracy.
I don’t think I’d heard that one before. I remember Irwin Schiff and others of his ilk arguing that the 16th wasn’t properly ratified and so taxes were illegal, tho.
ETA: Why do I remember? Because he had a huge freaking billboard right over his shop on Sahara for years. I think it’s a weed store now.
Reminds me a little of a Mormon acquaintance. Not that everyone is completely defined by their faith mind you, but this one individual completely refuses to engage the climate change issue. She thinks it is not human-caused, but that is the end of it. Her ex husband says, and so the discussion is over and she’s going to remain snippy for months, maybe forever.
But! MY ex works for NOAA. I have friends who are literally scientists. I think these types are amused by hanging around with dumb guys like me. Anyway, lady, I would really like to see the evidence behind your position. If I can’t make heads or tails of it, I know people who can!
Nope. Nada. She’d rather discuss ungrateful blacks kneeling on football fields, I got an earful of that. Or Moses’ snake-staff, she’ll discuss that. But not climate change. And she does it in a condescending way.
I am only speculating that the Oregon militia legislators are similar to this Mormon I know. The clinging to a position they can’t/won’t defend seems similar though. At a certain point, and definitely by the time the subject is being addressed in the legislature, you gotta put up or shut up. Let the people see the reasons and decide for themselves. If you can’t convince them, you don’t get to force a wrong/unpopular decision onto everyone.
These legislators should be in Portland explaining their views, not palling around with gunmen in Idaho. I get it that Dems have made moves like this, but the Wisconsin union thing came out of the blue and was very unpopular, so there was some actual representin’ going on in the face of political hackery. All sane people think so 
That’s a pretty common Sovereign Citizen argument, and there’s a lot of overlap between the SovCits and the militia movement.
Go ahead and Google it, if you’re keen to waste a few hours and not a few brain cells.
**A senator is threatening to kill state troopers. **
You don’t think that’s worth an objection or two? Or do we need some more “both sides do it!”
You’ve misunderstood my point. I didn’t say there were more of them. I said they supported Trump in far greater numbers than in the west.
I can understand why you were confused by the inartful way I said it, though.
Or they make 45g’s a year as an owner operator of a log truck and pretty much everything has been against them for the last 50 years. Spotted Owl’s, Gas prices, the forests burning. Every time some politition talks It’s bullshit. Cap and trade disproportionately affects rural people who also happen to be right wing but that’s secondary. Cap and trade, as oregon sees it, disproportionately affects transportation costs, benifitting city polluters, and negatively affecting rural communities.
The U.S. Senate can abolish the filibuster rule with a 51% vote. I’m not sure if we ever got a clear consensus to the question:* Can this rule change be made at any time, or only on the opening day of a session?*
How about the Oregon House? Can they abolish their quorum rule with a 51% vote? Or is it written into the State Constitution?
How is this a reasonable contribution to a conversation about worrisome political and social developments anywhere? Yes, I’m some technical sense, decisions are up to voters in a jurisdiction. But that isn’t really relevant when we are trying to understand a situation and it’s implications and discussing opinions regarding the best course of action. Things like this affect everyone, regardless of what side of a border you live on.
When politicians take political positions you disagree with, the solution is to vote them out. When politicians threaten to murder the police, the solution is to arrest them and throw them in jail for a very long time.
Isn’t this report conflating two different things? The [del]threat[/del] mouthing off of a legislator; and the Oregon State Police taking as a threat the announcement that some right-wing groups would participate in a protest march at the capitol? From what I’m reading, it was the state police that shut down the capitol, rather than “militias”.
ETA: at some point shouldn’t it be questioned whether a threat exists solely in the mind of the person feeling threatened? Like an old white woman calling the police because two “gang members” (black males) moved into the house next door?
Ok, threat established…
- Some people genuinely believe that climate change is a hoax.
- Some people know climate change is real, but nonetheless don’t want to suffer penalties in forms of increased taxes or expenses, even if those would fight climate change.
- Some people don’t want the opposing party to score a political victory.