4 ms·

I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote?

by xrd 7y ago

krapp 7y ago
Possibly a show of defiance and a political stunt intended to make their opponents look so unreasonable that camping out with extremist revolutionaries was a legitimate recourse. It's the same reason threatening to shut down the government is becoming more common, it makes you look tough and uncompromising in the face of what your base considers to be evil.
BeetleB 7y ago
>I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote? It's not an either or. The bill may have been one of the motives to flee. The reality in the end, though, was that their tactic didn't defeat the bill. They came back before the end of the session. There was a quorum, but the Democrats realized they didn't have enough votes. My point is that claiming there wasn't a quorum, given how productive the end of the session was[0], is simply false. [0]They passed 100 bills in the last two days. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-concludes-final-day-sine-die-house-senate/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-...
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  You're getting downvoted on both comments because you're being disingenuous and partisan. The GOP senators absolutely refused to return to Salem until they were positive the bill would not pass if they allowed quorum. They would have stayed away indefinitely if necessary. Does not bode well for the future of our democracy. I guess we will see what the future holds.
  - JetezLeLogin 7y ago
    Defensively upvoted BeetleB because the comment is literally and factually true and I see nothing disingenuous or partisan about it, nor would I venture into such intent-divining, mind-reading territory. You're correct about the intent of the Republican embargo, but your point is about what would have happened. BeetleB's comment is about what did happen. If we're all champions of rational discussion on HN then surely there's room for that much subtlety, not to mention plain facts. Not enough Democrats supported the bill; they declared it dead; Republicans decided in light of that, they could stop their stonewalling (and in my opinion, dereliction of duty). It's a technicality, and it's technically true.
    - craigyk 7y ago
      BeetleB is being disingenuous, the GOP fled and would not return until they were sure the bill died. There were other things that needed voting on- the climate bill was publicly dropped so that the missing senators would come back and they could vote on other issues. Putting the blame for this bill failing to pass on anyone but these senators is disingenuous by omission.
      - JetezLeLogin 7y ago
        It's all part of the story. Talking about the Niña doesn't mean I absolve the Pinta and the Santa María from whatever Columbus' expedition did. It does probably mean I'm talking about the Niña at the moment and am not terribly interested in the blame game. (No one else wants a time-out from that tedium huh?) OK well if we're going to play the blame game, and we don't like disingenuously omitting things, then why shield from blame those 3 Democrats who switched sides? Why shield from blame the leadership who could've stayed the course, maybe found a way to wait the Republicans out forever? (It's not like "rules" or "procedures" apply anymore, so why not?) You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having majorities in those bodies. Am I automatically a Republican for saying something like "Obama isn't liberal enough?" Of course not. And those who claim that criticism of the leadership is disloyal/traitorous share that trait with fascists.
        BeetleB 7y ago
        >You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having majorities in those bodies. Or, you know, just someone who values the truth. :-) There doesn't have to be a complex narrative behind my actions, and nor do I have to be on either the Democrats or the Republican's side to point out when a statement is false.
        7y ago

I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote?

by xrd 7y ago

I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote?

Possibly a show of defiance and a political stunt intended to make their opponents look so unreasonable that camping out with extremist revolutionaries was a legitimate recourse. It's the same reason threatening to shut down the government is becoming more common, it makes you look tough and uncompromising in the face of what your base considers to be evil.

BeetleB 7y ago

>I don't get why they fled the state then. Don't even put it up for a vote? It's not an either or. The bill may have been one of the motives to flee. The reality in the end, though, was that their tactic didn't defeat the bill. They came back before the end of the session. There was a quorum, but the Democrats realized they didn't have enough votes. My point is that claiming there wasn't a quorum, given how productive the end of the session was[0], is simply false. [0]They passed 100 bills in the last two days. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-concludes-final-day-sine-die-house-senate/ https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-legislative-session-...

rootusrootus 7y ago
You're getting downvoted on both comments because you're being disingenuous and partisan. The GOP senators absolutely refused to return to Salem until they were positive the bill would not pass if they allowed quorum. They would have stayed away indefinitely if necessary. Does not bode well for the future of our democracy. I guess we will see what the future holds.
- JetezLeLogin 7y ago
  Defensively upvoted BeetleB because the comment is literally and factually true and I see nothing disingenuous or partisan about it, nor would I venture into such intent-divining, mind-reading territory. You're correct about the intent of the Republican embargo, but your point is about what would have happened. BeetleB's comment is about what did happen. If we're all champions of rational discussion on HN then surely there's room for that much subtlety, not to mention plain facts. Not enough Democrats supported the bill; they declared it dead; Republicans decided in light of that, they could stop their stonewalling (and in my opinion, dereliction of duty). It's a technicality, and it's technically true.
  - craigyk 7y ago
    BeetleB is being disingenuous, the GOP fled and would not return until they were sure the bill died. There were other things that needed voting on- the climate bill was publicly dropped so that the missing senators would come back and they could vote on other issues. Putting the blame for this bill failing to pass on anyone but these senators is disingenuous by omission.
    - JetezLeLogin 7y ago
      It's all part of the story. Talking about the Niña doesn't mean I absolve the Pinta and the Santa María from whatever Columbus' expedition did. It does probably mean I'm talking about the Niña at the moment and am not terribly interested in the blame game. (No one else wants a time-out from that tedium huh?) OK well if we're going to play the blame game, and we don't like disingenuously omitting things, then why shield from blame those 3 Democrats who switched sides? Why shield from blame the leadership who could've stayed the course, maybe found a way to wait the Republicans out forever? (It's not like "rules" or "procedures" apply anymore, so why not?) You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having majorities in those bodies. Am I automatically a Republican for saying something like "Obama isn't liberal enough?" Of course not. And those who claim that criticism of the leadership is disloyal/traitorous share that trait with fascists.
      - BeetleB 7y ago
        >You never know, someone you claim is a Republican partisan could just be the most disappointed liberal you ever saw, fed up with how weak and ineffectual their supposed representatives in various bodies are, even despite having majorities in those bodies. Or, you know, just someone who values the truth. :-) There doesn't have to be a complex narrative behind my actions, and nor do I have to be on either the Democrats or the Republican's side to point out when a statement is false.
        7y ago