Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Armed Militias Pledge to Fight for Fugitive Oregon GOP Lawmakers ‘At Any Cost’ (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mcintyre1
- Start date
Mookie
Footballguy
(1) The issue is that they are sworn to perform their duty as representatives. A minority left the State to avoid their responsibility and prevent a quorum, grinding the State legislature to a halt. Tyranny of the few.
(2) Equating it to peaceful protest is absurd. They went into hiding to avoid a floor vote and prevent a quorum. It's not a protest, a statement, a filibuster, a refusal to set it for a vote or other political gamesmanship - they just left the State and abdicated their sworn oath. Show me where democrats have done the same thing.
(3) The people of the district they represent can oust them by election - not the people of Oregon. The people of Oregon should impeach them.
(4) The threat to send "bachelors" and be "heavily armed" was made by Oregon state senator Brian Boquist. Boquist also said later that his threats were not "thinly veiled". Yup, they didn't shoot anyone, but should that really be the standard?
Link
KCitons
Footballguy
Seems a little heavy handed to ask for impeachment for leaving. It was a statement being made. How many reps in DC miss votes? This was an organized message.
If anyone made a threat, it should be treated as any other threat made between two people. I don't see why Boquist's statement should be taken any differently. I've made that clear.
The bigger concern that some (mainly those here) is that there isn't we are screaming about this as a bigger problem. For 1, it's Oregon. It's not as though this happened on a Federal level. So, most people know they can't do anything to exact change. They can't do anything to enforce the law. If you are a citizen of Oregon, perhaps you should make a citizens arrest of Boquist for his statement.
Otherwise, it's lived it's life in the news cycle and is now a non issue for those outside of Oregon.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
You wouldn't arrest a guy who's just delivering drugs from one guy to another. ~Michael ScottMookie said:
sho nuff
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
Abraham Lincoln once jumped out of a window to try to prevent a quorum. But he had already been marked as present. Democrats and Republicans have done this before. Even in the Senate. But never have they threatened to kill anyone or got an armed militia involved.
KCitons
Footballguy
Then they should be charged as well.
I don't understand they anger for lack of anger from posters or general public. The anger should be towards the prosecuting attorneys in those states. Or even the federal level if you're going to classify it as terror threats.
If I was to leave a voicemail for my neighbor that threatens violence, I would expect the police to show up and possible charges to be filed. I have been reading about mass shootings or terror incidents that are caught before they occur. How are the police charging those people when an action hasn't occurred? I would suspect that there is much more evidence than what is happening in Oregon. I have to assume that our justice system is either working or corrupt. Since I don't live in Oregon and don't really know. I choose to assume that it's working. But, ultimately, I don't care.
KCitons
Footballguy
Did you see this armed militia?
I've seen lots of talk, but no confirmation that they are near these lawmakers.
Boquist's statement was to the extreme. Seems he should be the one that is being addressed with anger and criminal action.
NCCommish
Footballguy
3 percenters said they would protect any of these officials from law enforcement whatever it took. The threats they made against the Democrats in session were real enough that the legislature was closed because the police were concerned. If I call in a bomb threat it doesn't matter if I have one, if I show up or if I was just joking the threat is illegal. Same should apply here for the same reasons.
KCitons
Footballguy
Said and did, are two different things.
I've asked a couple of times. What law was broken? If there was a law that was broken, then its up to the criminal justice to take action.
I didnt make a bug stink out if Jessie Smollet not being prosecuted either. It wasn't my choice to make.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Said "there's a bomb in the building" did nothing. Communicating terrorist threats is the law broken. Dont see any difference here.
KCitons
Footballguy
Do you believe a law has been broken?
Do you believe that there is enough evidence to file charges and achieve a conviction?
Who is responsible for the two things listed above?
timschochet
Footballguy
I kind of see this thread as a mirror image of the Antifa thread.
In both cases, there is a tiny group of people engaging in threatening violence. In both cases, there are people here not only magnifying the infinitesimal threat that these groups represent, they're also implying (or outright suggesting) that the side they oppose is in sympathy with these groups, or even in league with them.
I'm really not concerned, either about these militia groups, or Antifa.
In both cases, there is a tiny group of people engaging in threatening violence. In both cases, there are people here not only magnifying the infinitesimal threat that these groups represent, they're also implying (or outright suggesting) that the side they oppose is in sympathy with these groups, or even in league with them.
I'm really not concerned, either about these militia groups, or Antifa.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well until the report was squashed law enforcement was very worried about right wing militias. Home grown right wing terrorists were the biggest concern. Which coincides with what has happened on the ground.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
For several years now I believe. Two to three hundred active right wing militia groups in the US from what I’ve read, depending on the time frame. But the existence of antifa =both sides.
KCitons
Footballguy
Why would I?
I've said that there may have been laws that were broken. People here are angry at others for not being more upset about the situation, instead of being upset at the people that enforce the laws.
What happens in Oregon has very little effect on me here. I can only assume that the powers that be in Oregon made the decision not to file charges.
The elections did have consequences. There were enough republicans left to use what i believe was a legal means of preventing a vote. Those are the consequences. I actually enjoy that technical discussion.
I meant by "will it matter. probably not" was in reference to the calls for violence. I didn't think anything would come of it, and sadly it looks like I was correct. That does not mean I agree with those results. That probably wasn't clear.
I haven't been shown anything. I've been shown the Senate President asked for them to be compelled. That position does not have the power according to the Constitution. What group of Senators compelled them?
Agree, a bunch of grandstanding.The Senate president isn't required to take a vote, and the Oregon State Police described the Governor's request as "a lawful directive".
I mean, I think the whole thing is a bunch of grandstanding, but I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. Everyone is using the legal options available to them.
The Senate president isn't required to take a vote, but a group is required to compel. How do you establish a group without a vote? Of course the State Police would agree with the order. At least in my State they would. Here the head of the State Police only serves in that position because the Governor approves of them being there. I assume Oregon is the same way, they are going to agree with the Governor. Their thoughts on the lawfulness of the directive don't mean much to me.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Where was it pointed out that it wasn't legal??
They walked out. There was a procedure for calling them back. I have not seen anything that said that procedure was followed. I saw where the Senate President called them back. That position does not have that power. Please point out when that happened. I have not researched extensively on my own, but nothing in this thread shows that it was. I could have missed it. Even if so, that procedure is very vague and subject to interpretation, even if it was followed. That would lead to the legality needing to be decided in court.
Similar threads
