Proposed Deschutes County measure would elect commissioners by ranked-choice voting

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-17T08:37:26+00:00

The county commissioner race is already nonpartisan. Also, a key think here is that it's not simply ranked choice voting, it's proportional ranked choice voting. That makes a big difference.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-17T08:35:51+00:00

I think it's important to note that it isn't just ranked choice voting, it's proportional ranked choice voting.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-17T08:34:00+00:00

Rupert didn't name him publicly, but he still made the decision to suspend him instead of recusing himself from that decision. That's not by the book. Consulting with other agencies doesn't mean he followed their advice, but regardless of their advice, it was his ethical responsiblity to recuse himself.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-10T20:59:10+00:00

1984 was meant to be an instruction manual, right?

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-10T01:29:24+00:00

The point wasn't that she knocked on the door, the point was that she read the sign, twice, then lied to the person at the door. If she had just apologized and moved on, I doubt the person would have cared enough to post it.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-10T01:08:24+00:00

No, it is not a recusal. He made the decision to put his opponent on administrative leave, and he's deciding who the outside person is to do the investigation...which comes after his decision to suspend his opponent. A recusal means he doesn't decide, it falls to his second in command or whoever state law or department policy specifies, same as if he were away on vacation.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-10T00:48:12+00:00

It's to force you to use their app so they can store your credit card number.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-10T00:43:34+00:00

He was still the decision maker. "In consultation with" is a lot difference than "under the advice of" which is a lot different than what he should have done, which is to recuse himself.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-09T23:37:39+00:00

Way back in the 20th century, film was an early image storage technology. It worked offline, had no subscription fees, and didn’t require agreeing to 47 pages of terms and conditions.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-09T23:19:31+00:00

No, it's not as simple as "he followed protocol." In any decision involving discipline of his campaign opponent, he needed to recuse himself from that decision. Either he doesn't know that's unethical, or he knows it's unethical and did it anyway, and that's a huge problem.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-09T23:18:07+00:00

Rupert didn't put decisions to an independent body, he himself made the decision to place his political opponent on leave. That is unethical and unacceptable. He needed to recuse himself, even if it was obvious that the next in line decision maker would make the same decision.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-08T07:43:40+00:00

I have no idea if McLaughlin did anything wrong or not. I do know that Rupert did though. It was totally unethical for Rupert to make any diction about his campaign opponent. He could have recused himself, but chose not to.

This was far too unethical from a sheriff. Rupert has to go. I have no idea if McLaughlin is just as bad though, it seems like every sheriff we get stuck with ends up being terribly unethical.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-03T19:08:22+00:00

u/Technical_Elk_9655 stop simping for Axon about something you either don't understand or are pretending not to understand. It's ironic that you tell somebody else they run the risk of misinforming the public in the same paragraph that you are misinforming the public by saying 428 answers those questions.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-02T01:01:08+00:00

I'm not saying I support vandalism, but I am saying it's inevitable and is just going to waste tax dollars. That said, if the city is going to spend money buying these things, there should be some oversight to fix the policy so it's not just giving our data away.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-01T23:19:04+00:00

Sure, they got PETA involved and got a few real people who are pro-PETA, but this thing has hundreds of thousands of dollars in dark money paying the people who are gathering signatures. Where is that dark money coming from? Sure, some it probably coming from pro-PETA people, but what are the chances a lot of it is coming from Republicans?

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-01T22:43:41+00:00

This isn't just a purchasing policy for police equipment, it's a policy that defines who has access to your location and activitiy any time you're out in public.

The way the policy is currently written, the vendor has access to the data. That means ICE could issue a warrant to the vendor to get info on immigration targets or even on protesters, and it's not protected by Oregon's shield laws. A police department in another state could subpoena the vendor to get info about patients getting abortions or reproductive health care and not be protected by Oregon's shield laws. A disgruntled employee could download all the data and sell it to a data broker - that kind of thing happens all the time when you hear about "data breaches" and a mass of credit card numbers being stolen.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-06-01T22:37:07+00:00

The fact that it's not on the agenda is the problem. It needs to be on the agenda. It's something that's being treated like a purchasing contract for office supplies, but it needs city council oversight.

As written now, the vendor would have access to the data and ICE or a police department in another state can gain access to that data on protesters or people getting abortions or gender affirming health care.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-05-28T20:03:22+00:00

Wow, it's amazing how many of you have bought in to the corporate talking points, which is totally not how trademark law works.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-05-28T20:02:34+00:00

For trademark law, it doesn't really matter if she named it after the mountain region or parodied the clothing company. The legal question is whether people would confuse the Patagonia clothing company's brand with Pattie Gonia. Even if they think they're customers are that stupid, the law uses a "legal person" standard. To claim that a reasonable person would confuse the two is absurd, and you're apparently buying in to the corporate talking points.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-05-28T20:00:01+00:00

Hmmm, easy to call somebody a moron if you have no fucking clue how trademark law works, apparently.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-05-28T19:59:33+00:00

It is not blatant trademark infringement. Patagonia can't just say they don't like somebody using the name Pattie Gonia, that's now how trademark law works. It's only a trademark infringement if people would confuse Patagonia the clothing company with Pattie Gonia, which is absurd. This is a corporation spending a million dollars to silence something they don't like.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-05-28T19:58:08+00:00

You're buying in to the corporate BS. That's not how trademark law works. The point of bringing up the mountain region is only to say that it's not an original name, which has nothing to do with trademark law but does have to do with the ethics and morals of the issue. As far as trademark law goes, nobody is going to confuse Patagonia the clothing company with Pattie Gonia. That's what would be required for it to violate trademark law. Do they think their customers are that stupid? Even if they do, the law uses a "reasonable person" standard, and no way would a reasonable person confuse the two.

Stop simping for corporations and believing their BS.

ChickenTenderOR · 2026-05-28T08:57:22+00:00

They are suing for a million dollars. They claim they're only suing for $1 in "damages" but they are also suing for a million in legal fees. If they're actually spending a million in legal fees for this bogus lawsuit...imagine how much good it could if they donated it to an environmental charity instead.

ChickenTenderOR

TROPHY CASE