I like and admire Fitzsimmons' work. The efforts of an able and experienced professional journalist with practical skills and acuity of judgement while always worthy of praise should not be so rare.
They should be the reportorial leaders. Formerly they were the journalists whom editors prized and peers attempted to emulate or even surpass. These qualities now absent among those whose charge it is to protect through print the lives and interests of the citizenry. Before the great American societal inversion her body of work would be the standard by which those of her profession measured themselves.
Years ago, I notied that the Pulitzers, the Nobels, and the other marks of professional recognition both local and international were being bestowed on the most accommodating beast in the herd's middle: the validating mediocrity. Now, acquiring recognition and distinction underline trailblazing and insight, clear truth and plain-speaking are the enemy.
Sometimes there can be a genius in pointing out the obvious which is what happens at Portland Dissent
Ruthless honesty is seldom admired but its presence does produce, can produce an informed citizenry capable of mending itself because it cannot bear the reflection of its failings when seen in good journalism’s mirror.
Aug 21, 2023·edited Aug 21, 2023Liked by Richard Cheverton, Pamela Fitzsimmons
In an email a week ago I asked Portland's city commissioners to oppose the current proposal for the Police Accountability Commission, for all the good that will do. Only one commissioner responded, and then only through a staff member. More on that later. Here's the version that went to Wheeler:
I am writing to urge you to oppose the current proposal for the Police Accountability Commission. Willamette Week recently reported that you had this to say about the proposed committee: “I also don’t want two years from now somebody saying, ‘How could you guys not have seen this mess coming?’ if it goes the way I think it could go.” You are absolutely correct to be wary of it.
First, the requirement to staff the group with "those most historically harmed by police conduct[i]" and "applicants with lived experience of police discrimination[ii]" while excluding current and former law enforcement officers and their family is an assault on fundamental notions of fairness and due process.
The jaw-dropping anti-police bias built into the commission immediately brings to mind Jo Ann Hardesty's irrational white-hot hatred of the police. It cannot be allowed to stand any more than would a commission that excluded minorities or other historically marginalized stakeholders but was top-heavy with cops.
Here is the untenable message the composition of the commission would send to observers, including accused police and their attorneys: All members of law enforcement and their family members are presumed to be so prejudiced against complainants and/or BIPOC that no police officer could ever be trusted to serve impartially on the commission. It wouldn't matter if they were in a different part of the organization or if they did not even know the accused. At the same time, commission members chosen specifically because they belong to communities who have suffered most at the hands of the police or because they have "lived experience of police discrimination" are going to put aside their preconceptions and rule fairly.
Do you find that plausible? Would you want to go up before such a commission if you were a police officer? Do you want to have people asking you about this when you attend conferences or speak to the press?
Such a patent lack of impartiality among the Commission’s finders of fact and law could well expose the City of Portland to litigation by parties seeking to overturn a decision of the Police Accountability Commission or invalidate the Commission itself on constitutional grounds.
Next, a 33-member board complete with staffers is simply out of the question. It would make Portland a laughing stock, a living stereotype of the worst excesses of runaway wokeness. Why couldn't nine people accomplish the job?
The sheer size of the proposed commission would render it unworkable as a decision-making body. A group consisting of almost three dozen people will inevitably be plagued by internal factions that will cause delay and cast doubts on the body's impartiality. The board will also be an especially attractive target for outside special interests because if they don't succeed in lobbying one member, they will have 32 more opportunities.
Also, as has been the case in Portland for many years now, the selection criteria for board members are deeply flawed. As was the case with the charter review commission, "lived experience" (whatever that is) and diversity of skin color and ethnicity will trump political viewpoint diversity (which is as good as nonexistent on such bodies in Portland but not in the city itself), professional or academic credentials, relevant subject matter expertise and, above all, independence from the nonprofit-local government axis.
There is tremendous cynicism, frustration and resentment among the general public over the way progressive social-justice advocates with little work experience outside the governmental or nonprofit sector seem to monopolize volunteer boards and commissions in Portland. In no way are these boards diverse. This is your opportunity to open up Portland's volunteer boards by bringing in people from other walks of life, including business executives, professionals, small business owners, blue-collar workers and people who have retired from distinguished careers.
Finally, I would like to anticipate problems the City of Portland is likely to encounter when it seeks to appoint people who have "lived experience of police discrimination" to the board.
What kind of proof will be sufficient to establish that discrimination did in fact take place? Would the applicant need to submit a judgment from a court that states he or she was a victim of discrimination? Considering what's at stake for the accused, it would be reckless in the extreme for the City simply to take the board applicant's word for it. I fear, however, that this is exactly what will happen unless rigorous verification standards and processes are implemented.
What does "lived experience of police discrimination" even mean? Is it the same as actual and direct personal experience of discrimination on the part of law enforcement? Or could an applicant claim to have "lived experience of police discrimination" if they know someone who claims to have been discriminated against?
Only Commissioner Mapps' office gave a substantive response:
"Thank you so much for reaching out. I certainly appreciate your concerns, and the discussion surrounding what the PAC is bringing forward is expected to be quite robust."
"One issue with many of your concerns (selection criteria, exclusion of law enforcement, etc.), is that many of these are not items that council will have the ability to vote on or change due to them being specifically included in the charter amendment that initiated this process. Anything in charter can only be changed by a vote of the general public."
"We do have the ability to work, over a 60 day period following the PAC’s submission of their official code recommendation package, on finding a ways to potentially align this as much as possible with being a well-functioning, and legal, operating body, but right now, we are closely monitoring the process and looking forward to engaging further. "
It should surprise no one that Jo Ann Hardesty built anti-police bias into the fabric of the Police Accountability Commission and made it impossible for the people's elected officials to correct the bias inherent in the composition of the Commission on their own. In my opinion, Hardesty will gladly abandon the Constitution when it gets in the way of her radical racial politics.
In any case, having allowed themselves to be bullied into inaction by the mob when they proposed much needed changes to the new city charter, city commissioners are unlikely to have the political will to do the right thing with the Police Accountability Commission.
The right thing to do would be for City Council to refer a measure to the voters to give police officers coming before the commission their Constitutionally guaranteed Sixth Amendment right to an unbiased and impartial decision making body.
It is surprising that the Portland Police Bureau or their union have not yet challenged the Police Accountability Commission on the grounds that it unconstitutionally deprives police of their right to an impartial adjudicating body. Perhaps they're waiting for City Council to tee the lawsuit up for them by going ahead and codifying the anti-cop bias that's so apparent in the proposed rules.
Aug 21, 2023·edited Aug 21, 2023Liked by Richard Cheverton, Pamela Fitzsimmons
"Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing or the Community Oversight Advisory Board (disbanded after two years when “mentally ill” agitators hijacked the meetings)... Membership in these groups is heavily weighted towards social justice activists."
Great backstory here which you may enjoy!
When that group was asking for applicants, this being several years back, my husband Don DuPay and I filled out the applications. I wanted to see for myself how long it would take them to reject our applications. I never once believed they would choose us. I did it as an experiment. We filled out the online applications, shared that we are both Democrats and had a balanced array of beliefs regarding social justice and police work, procedure, policies. We would have been great candidates for the board, but at no time did I ever believe we would be chosen.
Amy Ruiz was in charge of looking at applications, as I recall and I believe that can be corroborated. Anyhow, we got the expected email a few weeks later. We had not been chosen, by Amy Ruiz herself as I recall.
I found out later, perhaps six months later that their chosen board, consisting of a lot of people from the LGBTQ community, who struggled with various "disabilities" and "mental health" issues had devolved into almost immediate dysfunction and chaos. I heard from a close friend, who had inside information that the meetings were chaotic, screaming, yelling, tears, and members being escorted out of City Hall by the Portland Police... OH THE IRONY of THAT!!
About a year after we had applied and been turned down, we got an email from Amy Ruiz, asking if we were still interested in being interviewed, after we had submitted applications, to be on the board. It was HILARIOUS.
So, after their assortment of troubled, unstable but colorful folks didn't work out, they came-a-calling and asking if Don and I still wanted to be on the board. Being able to say, No Thank you, because we were busy with our publishing company Oregon Greystone Press was particularly delicious. LOL...
These kinds of people demonstrate their overall lack of common sense when they try to put together these absurd "Police Review Committees" and this new one is a complete JOKE. Made up of people who really think they understand police procedure, police science, better than the professionals. I honestly hope Mayor Wheeler is smart enough to nix this absurd idea, and quickly. If passed, it will be the death knell for Portland and this city will become even more lawless when police do a mass exodus.
Maybe when Portland is even more violent and dangerous, these ignorant and crazy radicals will finally be happy, after they have burned Portland to the ground.
The Community Oversight Advisory Board was some of the best live theater in town. It could have been an educational failure if the city had learned from its mistakes. Three of its members -- Dr. Rochelle Silver, former psychologist at Dammasch State Hospital; Dr. Alisha R. Moreland-Capuia, the first black psychiatrist in Oregon; and Dr. Sharon Meieran, an ER doc now on the county commission -- couldn’t control the manipulative agitators who took over the meetings. Two of these three women were experts in mental health.
Wheeler replaced COAB with the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing, which was just as large and unwieldy as COAB and packed with too many people representing special groups, who had a grudge against the cops. He made the same mistake — again! — with the Police Accountability Commission. It is a monster of his own making.
The only thing different about the last two groups is the meetings are tightly controlled courtesy of the Zoom format. At least COAB shared a similarity with police work — humans acting out in unpredictable ways.
I wrote about some of the COAB meetings. Here’s one from 2016. Things have only gotten worse:
Wheeler has destroyed this city with his appointments to various committees and commissions. Look no further than the non representative Charter Commission and the mess they will be bringing us (an untested misunderstood voting scheme and a mayor without a vote or a veto).
Well written as usual. Just as I start have glimmers of hope in turning the tide of political insanity in Portlandia, Pamela reminds me of the reality of what and who we face.
Aug 21, 2023Liked by Richard Cheverton, Pamela Fitzsimmons
"As designed by the Police Accountability Commission, a new 33-member citizen board would sit in judgment on police. None of these members could be former or current law enforcement officers or have family who have done police work. Once the board imposes discipline on a police officer, the police chief cannot impose lesser discipline."
And this is the crux of this issue. Do you hire a florist to do brain surgery? Do you hire a plumber to diagnose an epileptic child? No, you would not, but ANYONE thinks they can weigh in on police matters. This illustrates the level of ignorance of the masses, who think police are just referees and not professionals. When you ask one of these idiots to define Police Science, they will look at you like...'um, whut?"
I don't know if Portland is savable anymore. These radical idiots are doing to run it into the ground. RIP Portland. It was nice while it lasted.
In my opinion, Jo Ann Hardesty's aim was to stack the Committee with people who are almost as biased against the police as she is so that they can really stick it to the cops as her proxy.
Aug 21, 2023Liked by Richard Cheverton, Pamela Fitzsimmons
Thank you for showcasing, unfortunately, how idiotic the typical Portland voter is, and how they routinely let emotion over logic drive their decision making. Every time I hear someone say our leaders, or the Mayor, or the Governor has let us down, I correct them and say, you mean those people that you VOTED for, did pretty much what they said they were going to do. I’ve mentioned this many times, but in the height of the riots in the summer of 2020, just about every house had a Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police sign in their yard and one day there was a meth addict, yelling and screaming and running around the Grant park Neighborhood. I was on a run at the time and watched as one neighbor after another walked out of their house and showed great fear and disdain for this unstable, high as a kite, tweaker. I watched each of them call the police. They wanted this man gone, and they did not hesitate to call the cops. The hypocrisy was astounding, utterly astounding.
Maybe not mentally ill but highly polarized. There are many “Trumpers on the left” here in Portland. Just like Donald they are obnoxious and ideologically driven.
No, not at all. it means far left extremists that behave like Trump. The far left and the far right have many similar qualities. It’s called the Horseshoe Theory. You really see it play out in places like Portland and I would guess San Francisco as well.
From the name-calling to the intolerance of others of different perspectives both the far left and far right are very similar.
The far left progressives in Portland think they are liberal and open-minded but many are actually intolerant zealots just like those on the other end of the political spectrum.
I don't see how this theory is played out in Portland because GOP voters are 10%, Democrats are 90%. Rather unbalanced. GOP voters are better off cowering in the corner. Fear of Antifa, BLM violence is pretty high. Jury was so scared of Antifa they acquitted two thugs recently.
Huh? This has nothing to do with Republicans in Portland. I’ve never met one—although maybe they just won’t admit it. LOL. This is about far left progressives in Portland behaving as badly as far right Trumpers.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/23/the-washington-posts-new-hire-shows-media-will-never-hold-themselves-accountable/
As always, terrific research, history, observations--and Pam's sense of utter disbelief that Portland voters can be so damned dumb.
They are; they will do it all over again.
I like and admire Fitzsimmons' work. The efforts of an able and experienced professional journalist with practical skills and acuity of judgement while always worthy of praise should not be so rare.
They should be the reportorial leaders. Formerly they were the journalists whom editors prized and peers attempted to emulate or even surpass. These qualities now absent among those whose charge it is to protect through print the lives and interests of the citizenry. Before the great American societal inversion her body of work would be the standard by which those of her profession measured themselves.
Years ago, I notied that the Pulitzers, the Nobels, and the other marks of professional recognition both local and international were being bestowed on the most accommodating beast in the herd's middle: the validating mediocrity. Now, acquiring recognition and distinction underline trailblazing and insight, clear truth and plain-speaking are the enemy.
Sometimes there can be a genius in pointing out the obvious which is what happens at Portland Dissent
Ruthless honesty is seldom admired but its presence does produce, can produce an informed citizenry capable of mending itself because it cannot bear the reflection of its failings when seen in good journalism’s mirror.
https://www.breitbart.com/social-justice/2023/08/21/transgenderism-male-librarian-gags-woman-for-misgendering/
In an email a week ago I asked Portland's city commissioners to oppose the current proposal for the Police Accountability Commission, for all the good that will do. Only one commissioner responded, and then only through a staff member. More on that later. Here's the version that went to Wheeler:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing to urge you to oppose the current proposal for the Police Accountability Commission. Willamette Week recently reported that you had this to say about the proposed committee: “I also don’t want two years from now somebody saying, ‘How could you guys not have seen this mess coming?’ if it goes the way I think it could go.” You are absolutely correct to be wary of it.
First, the requirement to staff the group with "those most historically harmed by police conduct[i]" and "applicants with lived experience of police discrimination[ii]" while excluding current and former law enforcement officers and their family is an assault on fundamental notions of fairness and due process.
The jaw-dropping anti-police bias built into the commission immediately brings to mind Jo Ann Hardesty's irrational white-hot hatred of the police. It cannot be allowed to stand any more than would a commission that excluded minorities or other historically marginalized stakeholders but was top-heavy with cops.
Here is the untenable message the composition of the commission would send to observers, including accused police and their attorneys: All members of law enforcement and their family members are presumed to be so prejudiced against complainants and/or BIPOC that no police officer could ever be trusted to serve impartially on the commission. It wouldn't matter if they were in a different part of the organization or if they did not even know the accused. At the same time, commission members chosen specifically because they belong to communities who have suffered most at the hands of the police or because they have "lived experience of police discrimination" are going to put aside their preconceptions and rule fairly.
Do you find that plausible? Would you want to go up before such a commission if you were a police officer? Do you want to have people asking you about this when you attend conferences or speak to the press?
Such a patent lack of impartiality among the Commission’s finders of fact and law could well expose the City of Portland to litigation by parties seeking to overturn a decision of the Police Accountability Commission or invalidate the Commission itself on constitutional grounds.
Next, a 33-member board complete with staffers is simply out of the question. It would make Portland a laughing stock, a living stereotype of the worst excesses of runaway wokeness. Why couldn't nine people accomplish the job?
The sheer size of the proposed commission would render it unworkable as a decision-making body. A group consisting of almost three dozen people will inevitably be plagued by internal factions that will cause delay and cast doubts on the body's impartiality. The board will also be an especially attractive target for outside special interests because if they don't succeed in lobbying one member, they will have 32 more opportunities.
Also, as has been the case in Portland for many years now, the selection criteria for board members are deeply flawed. As was the case with the charter review commission, "lived experience" (whatever that is) and diversity of skin color and ethnicity will trump political viewpoint diversity (which is as good as nonexistent on such bodies in Portland but not in the city itself), professional or academic credentials, relevant subject matter expertise and, above all, independence from the nonprofit-local government axis.
There is tremendous cynicism, frustration and resentment among the general public over the way progressive social-justice advocates with little work experience outside the governmental or nonprofit sector seem to monopolize volunteer boards and commissions in Portland. In no way are these boards diverse. This is your opportunity to open up Portland's volunteer boards by bringing in people from other walks of life, including business executives, professionals, small business owners, blue-collar workers and people who have retired from distinguished careers.
Finally, I would like to anticipate problems the City of Portland is likely to encounter when it seeks to appoint people who have "lived experience of police discrimination" to the board.
What kind of proof will be sufficient to establish that discrimination did in fact take place? Would the applicant need to submit a judgment from a court that states he or she was a victim of discrimination? Considering what's at stake for the accused, it would be reckless in the extreme for the City simply to take the board applicant's word for it. I fear, however, that this is exactly what will happen unless rigorous verification standards and processes are implemented.
What does "lived experience of police discrimination" even mean? Is it the same as actual and direct personal experience of discrimination on the part of law enforcement? Or could an applicant claim to have "lived experience of police discrimination" if they know someone who claims to have been discriminated against?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only Commissioner Mapps' office gave a substantive response:
"Thank you so much for reaching out. I certainly appreciate your concerns, and the discussion surrounding what the PAC is bringing forward is expected to be quite robust."
"One issue with many of your concerns (selection criteria, exclusion of law enforcement, etc.), is that many of these are not items that council will have the ability to vote on or change due to them being specifically included in the charter amendment that initiated this process. Anything in charter can only be changed by a vote of the general public."
"We do have the ability to work, over a 60 day period following the PAC’s submission of their official code recommendation package, on finding a ways to potentially align this as much as possible with being a well-functioning, and legal, operating body, but right now, we are closely monitoring the process and looking forward to engaging further. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should surprise no one that Jo Ann Hardesty built anti-police bias into the fabric of the Police Accountability Commission and made it impossible for the people's elected officials to correct the bias inherent in the composition of the Commission on their own. In my opinion, Hardesty will gladly abandon the Constitution when it gets in the way of her radical racial politics.
In any case, having allowed themselves to be bullied into inaction by the mob when they proposed much needed changes to the new city charter, city commissioners are unlikely to have the political will to do the right thing with the Police Accountability Commission.
The right thing to do would be for City Council to refer a measure to the voters to give police officers coming before the commission their Constitutionally guaranteed Sixth Amendment right to an unbiased and impartial decision making body.
It is surprising that the Portland Police Bureau or their union have not yet challenged the Police Accountability Commission on the grounds that it unconstitutionally deprives police of their right to an impartial adjudicating body. Perhaps they're waiting for City Council to tee the lawsuit up for them by going ahead and codifying the anti-cop bias that's so apparent in the proposed rules.
[i] https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2021/11/editorial-police-accountability-initiatives-need-citys-attention.html
[ii] https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/08/09/a-plan-for-the-new-police-oversight-board-meets-a-skeptical-city-council/
You should run for city council! We need to hear more voices like yours.
Aww, shucks! (Blush) I don't have the temperament for it, I'm afraid.
I was reading this:
https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2023/08/measure-110-managers-exit-raises-fresh-questions-about-oregons-drug-decriminalization-program.html
Which led to this:
https://www.thelundreport.org/content/measure-110-program-manager-resigns-says-state-was-maliciously-negligent
Perhaps this is the same person:
https://www.glapn.org/6587AngelaCarter.html
It is:
https://chacruna.net/plant-medicine-healing-alliance-seminar-with-the-portland-psychedelic-society/angela-carter/
Good luck, Portland.
J. Bog is something of an old school cop hater, I'll have to ask if current arrangments are working out satisfactorily for him.
"Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing or the Community Oversight Advisory Board (disbanded after two years when “mentally ill” agitators hijacked the meetings)... Membership in these groups is heavily weighted towards social justice activists."
Great backstory here which you may enjoy!
When that group was asking for applicants, this being several years back, my husband Don DuPay and I filled out the applications. I wanted to see for myself how long it would take them to reject our applications. I never once believed they would choose us. I did it as an experiment. We filled out the online applications, shared that we are both Democrats and had a balanced array of beliefs regarding social justice and police work, procedure, policies. We would have been great candidates for the board, but at no time did I ever believe we would be chosen.
Amy Ruiz was in charge of looking at applications, as I recall and I believe that can be corroborated. Anyhow, we got the expected email a few weeks later. We had not been chosen, by Amy Ruiz herself as I recall.
I found out later, perhaps six months later that their chosen board, consisting of a lot of people from the LGBTQ community, who struggled with various "disabilities" and "mental health" issues had devolved into almost immediate dysfunction and chaos. I heard from a close friend, who had inside information that the meetings were chaotic, screaming, yelling, tears, and members being escorted out of City Hall by the Portland Police... OH THE IRONY of THAT!!
About a year after we had applied and been turned down, we got an email from Amy Ruiz, asking if we were still interested in being interviewed, after we had submitted applications, to be on the board. It was HILARIOUS.
So, after their assortment of troubled, unstable but colorful folks didn't work out, they came-a-calling and asking if Don and I still wanted to be on the board. Being able to say, No Thank you, because we were busy with our publishing company Oregon Greystone Press was particularly delicious. LOL...
These kinds of people demonstrate their overall lack of common sense when they try to put together these absurd "Police Review Committees" and this new one is a complete JOKE. Made up of people who really think they understand police procedure, police science, better than the professionals. I honestly hope Mayor Wheeler is smart enough to nix this absurd idea, and quickly. If passed, it will be the death knell for Portland and this city will become even more lawless when police do a mass exodus.
Maybe when Portland is even more violent and dangerous, these ignorant and crazy radicals will finally be happy, after they have burned Portland to the ground.
Thanks. That is a great backstory.
The Community Oversight Advisory Board was some of the best live theater in town. It could have been an educational failure if the city had learned from its mistakes. Three of its members -- Dr. Rochelle Silver, former psychologist at Dammasch State Hospital; Dr. Alisha R. Moreland-Capuia, the first black psychiatrist in Oregon; and Dr. Sharon Meieran, an ER doc now on the county commission -- couldn’t control the manipulative agitators who took over the meetings. Two of these three women were experts in mental health.
Wheeler replaced COAB with the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing, which was just as large and unwieldy as COAB and packed with too many people representing special groups, who had a grudge against the cops. He made the same mistake — again! — with the Police Accountability Commission. It is a monster of his own making.
The only thing different about the last two groups is the meetings are tightly controlled courtesy of the Zoom format. At least COAB shared a similarity with police work — humans acting out in unpredictable ways.
I wrote about some of the COAB meetings. Here’s one from 2016. Things have only gotten worse:
https://www.heldtoanswer.com/2016/05/tail-wagging-police-dog/
Wheeler has destroyed this city with his appointments to various committees and commissions. Look no further than the non representative Charter Commission and the mess they will be bringing us (an untested misunderstood voting scheme and a mayor without a vote or a veto).
Well written as usual. Just as I start have glimmers of hope in turning the tide of political insanity in Portlandia, Pamela reminds me of the reality of what and who we face.
The new city charter is the ace up the radicals' sleeve to make sure that the backlash against failed progressive politics does not succeed.
"As designed by the Police Accountability Commission, a new 33-member citizen board would sit in judgment on police. None of these members could be former or current law enforcement officers or have family who have done police work. Once the board imposes discipline on a police officer, the police chief cannot impose lesser discipline."
And this is the crux of this issue. Do you hire a florist to do brain surgery? Do you hire a plumber to diagnose an epileptic child? No, you would not, but ANYONE thinks they can weigh in on police matters. This illustrates the level of ignorance of the masses, who think police are just referees and not professionals. When you ask one of these idiots to define Police Science, they will look at you like...'um, whut?"
I don't know if Portland is savable anymore. These radical idiots are doing to run it into the ground. RIP Portland. It was nice while it lasted.
This "judgment" nonsense will probably be blown out in federal court.
In my opinion, Jo Ann Hardesty's aim was to stack the Committee with people who are almost as biased against the police as she is so that they can really stick it to the cops as her proxy.
Thanks!
Thank you for showcasing, unfortunately, how idiotic the typical Portland voter is, and how they routinely let emotion over logic drive their decision making. Every time I hear someone say our leaders, or the Mayor, or the Governor has let us down, I correct them and say, you mean those people that you VOTED for, did pretty much what they said they were going to do. I’ve mentioned this many times, but in the height of the riots in the summer of 2020, just about every house had a Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police sign in their yard and one day there was a meth addict, yelling and screaming and running around the Grant park Neighborhood. I was on a run at the time and watched as one neighbor after another walked out of their house and showed great fear and disdain for this unstable, high as a kite, tweaker. I watched each of them call the police. They wanted this man gone, and they did not hesitate to call the cops. The hypocrisy was astounding, utterly astounding.
Portland voters are a lot like Minneapolis voters: they elect mentally ill "leaders" and delusional policies because they themselves are mentally ill.
Maybe not mentally ill but highly polarized. There are many “Trumpers on the left” here in Portland. Just like Donald they are obnoxious and ideologically driven.
What does "Trumpers on the left" mean? Democrats who support Trump?
No, not at all. it means far left extremists that behave like Trump. The far left and the far right have many similar qualities. It’s called the Horseshoe Theory. You really see it play out in places like Portland and I would guess San Francisco as well.
From the name-calling to the intolerance of others of different perspectives both the far left and far right are very similar.
The far left progressives in Portland think they are liberal and open-minded but many are actually intolerant zealots just like those on the other end of the political spectrum.
https://reason.com/2021/09/13/lets-play-horseshoe-theory/
I don't see how this theory is played out in Portland because GOP voters are 10%, Democrats are 90%. Rather unbalanced. GOP voters are better off cowering in the corner. Fear of Antifa, BLM violence is pretty high. Jury was so scared of Antifa they acquitted two thugs recently.
Huh? This has nothing to do with Republicans in Portland. I’ve never met one—although maybe they just won’t admit it. LOL. This is about far left progressives in Portland behaving as badly as far right Trumpers.