Mink and Jawando propose to limit pull over offenses in Moco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, it's abundantly clear what many of you want is for no elected official to ever criticize police or limit their power.

There is a reason why we have elected officials and don't let law enforcement institutions govern themselves - because we are not a police state. If you want to live in a police state, might I suggest Russia?

limiting police power is not a county function. it is a state function. so yes, Jawando overreaches

The Council can and has passed bills governing MCPD, it is well within their powers.

Governing MCPD in terms of policy is one thing. Not actual police powers, which are state domain. Vehicle laws are state, and state law preempts what Jawando is trying to do. Don't be surprised if the State Attorney General gets involved in this.

Nah. The bill doesn't affect state law. It just affects police practices.

traffic law is state law. 100%

If that's the case then IF it passes (highly unlikely) it will get struck down..problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, it's abundantly clear what many of you want is for no elected official to ever criticize police or limit their power.

There is a reason why we have elected officials and don't let law enforcement institutions govern themselves - because we are not a police state. If you want to live in a police state, might I suggest Russia?

limiting police power is not a county function. it is a state function. so yes, Jawando overreaches

The Council can and has passed bills governing MCPD, it is well within their powers.

Governing MCPD in terms of policy is one thing. Not actual police powers, which are state domain. Vehicle laws are state, and state law preempts what Jawando is trying to do. Don't be surprised if the State Attorney General gets involved in this.

Nah. The bill doesn't affect state law. It just affects police practices.

traffic law is state law. 100%

If that's the case then IF it passes (highly unlikely) it will get struck down..problem solved.

It’s more than that…it’s the very idea behind some of the policy changes. Biden and the rest of the party have started to figure out that this is one of the surest paths to a DeSantis presidency, and that will end up being the beginning of the end for this country. My fellow D’s need to get their stuff together ASAP.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-bucks-liberals-tells-democrats-get-tough-crime-rcna73286

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, it's abundantly clear what many of you want is for no elected official to ever criticize police or limit their power.

There is a reason why we have elected officials and don't let law enforcement institutions govern themselves - because we are not a police state. If you want to live in a police state, might I suggest Russia?

limiting police power is not a county function. it is a state function. so yes, Jawando overreaches

The Council can and has passed bills governing MCPD, it is well within their powers.

Governing MCPD in terms of policy is one thing. Not actual police powers, which are state domain. Vehicle laws are state, and state law preempts what Jawando is trying to do. Don't be surprised if the State Attorney General gets involved in this.

Nah. The bill doesn't affect state law. It just affects police practices.

traffic law is state law. 100%

If that's the case then IF it passes (highly unlikely) it will get struck down..problem solved.

It’s more than that…it’s the very idea behind some of the policy changes. Biden and the rest of the party have started to figure out that this is one of the surest paths to a DeSantis presidency, and that will end up being the beginning of the end for this country. My fellow D’s need to get their stuff together ASAP.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-bucks-liberals-tells-democrats-get-tough-crime-rcna73286

Oh so your primary concern is national politics, ok. Thanks for sharing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw, it's abundantly clear what many of you want is for no elected official to ever criticize police or limit their power.

There is a reason why we have elected officials and don't let law enforcement institutions govern themselves - because we are not a police state. If you want to live in a police state, might I suggest Russia?

limiting police power is not a county function. it is a state function. so yes, Jawando overreaches

The Council can and has passed bills governing MCPD, it is well within their powers.

Governing MCPD in terms of policy is one thing. Not actual police powers, which are state domain. Vehicle laws are state, and state law preempts what Jawando is trying to do. Don't be surprised if the State Attorney General gets involved in this.

Nah. The bill doesn't affect state law. It just affects police practices.

traffic law is state law. 100%

If that's the case then IF it passes (highly unlikely) it will get struck down..problem solved.

It’s more than that…it’s the very idea behind some of the policy changes. Biden and the rest of the party have started to figure out that this is one of the surest paths to a DeSantis presidency, and that will end up being the beginning of the end for this country. My fellow D’s need to get their stuff together ASAP.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-bucks-liberals-tells-democrats-get-tough-crime-rcna73286

Oh so your primary concern is national politics, ok. Thanks for sharing that.

I’m a DP. They are most certainly related. I’m liberal, but I’m sick of what local liberal / progressive politicians are peddling. Yes, it makes me pause when I vote now. I know I’m not alone. Would I vote for a R? I don’t know. Will that person seem more reasonable? Hmmm.

I’m sure someone will tell me I’m not really a liberal, which is usually the response when somebody isn’t willing to blindly support progressive policies, even ones as ridiculous as this one.

[Anonymous]

Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

Amen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

I was a Democrat in the 1990s (I am still a Democrat). Being a Democrat in the 1990s did not mean that you believed in gay marriage; it meant that you opposed gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (Biden voted for it), and it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So I'm not very worried about anything else you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

I was a Democrat in the 1990s (I am still a Democrat). Being a Democrat in the 1990s did not mean that you believed in gay marriage; it meant that you opposed gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (Biden voted for it), and it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So I'm not very worried about anything else you say.

*being a democrat in a blue state metropolitan area with a college education, I should have said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

I was a Democrat in the 1990s (I am still a Democrat). Being a Democrat in the 1990s did not mean that you believed in gay marriage; it meant that you opposed gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (Biden voted for it), and it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So I'm not very worried about anything else you say.

*being a democrat in a blue state metropolitan area with a college education, I should have said

Still no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

I was a Democrat in the 1990s (I am still a Democrat). Being a Democrat in the 1990s did not mean that you believed in gay marriage; it meant that you opposed gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (Biden voted for it), and it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So I'm not very worried about anything else you say.

*being a democrat in a blue state metropolitan area with a college education, I should have said

Still no.

ARe you questioning my lived experience?

[Anonymous]

Hopefully, Mink and Jawando will go the way of Lori Lightfoot. Voters are tired of elected officials who are soft on crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

I was a Democrat in the 1990s (I am still a Democrat). Being a Democrat in the 1990s did not mean that you believed in gay marriage; it meant that you opposed gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (Biden voted for it), and it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So I'm not very worried about anything else you say.

*being a democrat in a blue state metropolitan area with a college education, I should have said

Still no.

ARe you questioning my lived experience?

Certainly not. If you say you were a Democrat in the 1990s because you supported gay marriage, then who is anybody to say you didn't? It was an odd thing to do, and demonstrates a lack of awareness about politics and current events, but people do do odd things and demonstrate a lack of awareness, all the time!

Support for gay marriage was not a mainstream belief in the Democratic Party in the 1990s. That's just a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

I was a Democrat in the 1990s (I am still a Democrat). Being a Democrat in the 1990s did not mean that you believed in gay marriage; it meant that you opposed gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (Biden voted for it), and it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So I'm not very worried about anything else you say.

There were too many votes for Clinton to veto it. DOMA was signed mostly to prevent a constitutional amendment which was still a step in the right direction to LGBT rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

I was a Democrat in the 1990s (I am still a Democrat). Being a Democrat in the 1990s did not mean that you believed in gay marriage; it meant that you opposed gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (Biden voted for it), and it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So I'm not very worried about anything else you say.

There were too many votes for Clinton to veto it. DOMA was signed mostly to prevent a constitutional amendment which was still a step in the right direction to LGBT rights.

Why were there too many votes for Clinton to veto it? Because most Democrats in the House and Senate voted for it. People shouldn't try to retcon general support for gay marriage back into the 1990s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Sorry I'm a 1990s democrat when that meant you believe in free speech, education, infrastructure, and gay marriage. I never signed up for holding hands and singing Kumbaya with violent criminals and handing out awards to carjackers and drug dealers. I was told by GW Bush in the 2000s that if I question any policies, I hate America. Now I am being told by democrats if I question any policies, I hate black people. The left wing can F off, they have become a parody of themselves. I will not vote a republican but I also can't in good conscience vote a democrat into office either. Pathetic

I was a Democrat in the 1990s (I am still a Democrat). Being a Democrat in the 1990s did not mean that you believed in gay marriage; it meant that you opposed gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (Biden voted for it), and it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So I'm not very worried about anything else you say.

There were too many votes for Clinton to veto it. DOMA was signed mostly to prevent a constitutional amendment which was still a step in the right direction to LGBT rights.

Why were there too many votes for Clinton to veto it? Because most Democrats in the House and Senate voted for it. People shouldn't try to retcon general support for gay marriage back into the 1990s.

Politics are nuanced, it's not always as it seems. It was passed because they knew if they did not pass it the R were going to go for a full amendment.

It was actually a step in the right direction, but it's hard to understand that with a 2023 view of it.

Clinton signed it at night, no pictures of the signing and the pens were destroyed. That's how much he supported it.

Ds went on over the next 5 years to slowly put protections in place that lead up to the Repect for marriage act.

It was also in the middle of the AIDs crisis and R were demonizing gay people... just like they did to the chinese with COVID, same playbook.

Siging that bill made it possible to get more funding for HIV, pass a federal hate crime for LGBT people, banning discrimination based on sex orientation.

We are talking about a time where Republicans beating and killing gay people. Mathew Sheppard happened at this time.