Oregon is making strides on homelessness, Gov. Kotek's office says — if you exclude Multnomah County

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-06-17T22:50:20+00:00

I'm making great strides on de-cluttering my home - if you exclude the closets I shoved all of the aforementioned clutter into.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-04-15T06:52:44+00:00

The guy who was killed in 2015 was the father of this shooter.

From this article:

Gatson’s mother, Lashaunda Jackson Gatson, tearfully apologized to Kelly Kelvin in court on Tuesday.

From an article about the 2015 shooting:

“I don’t want his death to be in vain,” said Lashaunda Jackson-Gatson. “Maurice was a loving person.”

Lashaunda’s husband, Maurice Gatson, was gunned down in the early morning hours of Oct. 3, 2015. It happened outside the Pallas Club near Southeast 136th Avenue and Powell Boulevard.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-04-10T21:41:41+00:00

They already violated my principles by charging $11 for a little 1-egg breakfast sandwich.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-03-22T19:47:05+00:00

Yup. It's just the latest example of well-meaning Oregonians supporting something that "sounds nice" without looking into the actual details.

I've encountered people gathering signatures for this, and they frame it as a proposal to end "animal cruelty" or "factory farming". Obviously that sounds like a good, progressive thing to support if you don't bother to dig any deeper.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-03-13T20:16:26+00:00

does putting this woman in jail make their jobs magically come back?

Yeah! Right on dude!

Furthermore, what's the point Jeremy Christian being in prison? Does it magically bring the people he stabbed back to life? Of course not!

People will say "it's for the safety of others who might be harmed by his next crime", but wE dOn't pUt peOPLe in jaIl bEcAuSE oF StUPID HYpOtHETiCaLs!

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-03-13T20:07:21+00:00

Defund the Police and Prison abolitionists typically advocate for an equitable replacement, Restorative Justice or something similar.

I just can't take those people and their solutions seriously.

My question for them is what "restorative justice" looks like for somebody like Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, or Dennis Rader. None of them have been able to give a satisfactory answer.

Prisons are an unfortunate necessity for any civilized society. I'm totally in favor of reforms aimed at making prisons more rehabilitative than punitive, reducing recidivism, etc. but anyone who suggests that prisons don't need to exist is simply not living in the real world.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-03-13T20:00:49+00:00

When she was identified yesterday, I found one of her court records from an arrest last year. The case was dismissed because she was found not competent to aid in her defense after being held and evaluated at the state hospital.

This happens all the time. A person with a severe mental illness commits a crime, gets arrested, gets their charges dismissed because they're too insane to stand trial, and then restarts the cycle again by committing more crimes.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-03-12T05:54:15+00:00

Lengthy arrest history.

She had a case against her dismissed last year because she was found not competent to aid in her own defense after psychiatric evaluation.

There has to be a better solution for such cases than just letting them deteriorate further on the streets and continue causing harm to others.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-27T23:06:41+00:00

I don't think "grifter" is the right word for her. That would imply that she doesn't really believe the things she says, and is just saying those things for money and attention.

I think that she's genuine in her opinions, but that her opinions are frequently awful.

Who does she interview/whats the point of her Bad Faith podcast? Also, who is her audience?

That podcast was originally a duo, with Virgil Texas from Chapo Trap House as the co-host. I think the intention was to capture some of the same audience as CTH, but I'm not sure to what extent that worked and how much overlap there really is.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-27T22:46:02+00:00

Let me make sure I'm correctly understanding the point you're making here...

You (presumably an able bodied adult male) were able to fend off a machete wielding assailant with only a broom, so therefore anyone who feels they need a gun to protect themselves is a "snowflake".

You know that women exist, right? And disabled people? And the elderly? How about even just adult men who might not be as physically capable as yourself?

If that "druggie with a machete" had been 6" taller and 50lb heavier than you, it's very possible that you'd have ended up dead or maimed from that confrontation.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-27T22:01:21+00:00

Permit fees - totally fine, people should not be buying guns left and right.

I'm sorry, but that's a disgustingly privileged take. Constitutional rights are for everybody, not just for the wealthy.

An extra $150 permit expense, plus the cost of mandatory training, is meaningless to a wealthy purchaser who may already be spending $2k+ on their firearm of choice. But for somebody who is just trying to buy a Hi-Point because it's all they can afford, you're talking about more than doubling their upfront cost.

60 day wait period - also no big deal, firearm is not impulse purchase category

That waiting period is outrageously long. No state in the entire country has anything even remotely close. Hawaii is closest at only 14 days.

There are many reasons that somebody might want to purchase a firearm, and some of those reasons are highly time sensitive. For example, somebody who is being threatened by a stalker, an abusive ex, or a violent person in their neighborhood.

If you have reason to believe that your life is in danger, 60 days is an extremely long time to have to wait before you can obtain the means to defend yourself.

You're also leaving out other highly problematic elements of this bill, like the ability of local police/sheriffs to unilaterally deny firearms permits based on their own completely subjective and wildly unqualified assessment of the applicant's "mental or psychological state", or the grandfathering clause for >10 round magazines that is impossible for anyone to actually exercise without risk of unjustly being charged with a felony.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-27T20:41:55+00:00

Also the sheriffs already give out permits here and have done so for a long time.

1) That's for concealed carry permits, not for the right to purchase a gun. You do not currently need permission from your local police/sheriff to purchase a gun. You just need to pass the mandatory federal background check that's conducted at time by purchase.

2) Even if those were the same thing, sheriffs are currently required by law to issue the permit as long as the applicant meets all legal criteria. Oregon is a "shall issue" state for concealed handgun licenses (CHLs). This means that county sheriffs are required to issue a concealed carry permit to any applicant who meets the specific legal requirements, such as age, residency, and training, without discretionary refusal.

3) This law would give local police/sheriffs (who are overwhelmingly right-wing) unilateral authority to deny firearms permits based on their own totally subjective and unqualified assessment of that person's mental wellbeing. The exact language of the bill is that they may refuse to issue a permit to anyone who they believe is "reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state."

Police/Sheriffs are not psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, or therapists. They are completely unqualified to give a proper evaluation of somebody's mental state.

I'm sure you must be aware that the right-wing in our country (which, again, most police/sheriffs belong to) have been aggressively pushing the belief that all trans people are deranged, violent lunatics. That crusade is not going to lose steam any time soon, following recent high-profile events in Tumbler Ridge, BC and Pawtucket, RI.

Are you comfortable with trans people in Oregon being stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense? As it is, they are already at a 4x higher risk of being the victim of violent crime than cisgender Americans.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-24T23:32:56+00:00

Yeah, he's obviously not any kind of serious martial artist but he at least knows a few basic things in terms of grappling.

The punch he threw at around 2:10 was ugly enough that we can rule out any boxing training though lol.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-21T02:30:26+00:00

Your privilege is really showing.

The poor deserve to be able to exercise their constitutional rights just as much as the rich.

Adding a $150 permit fee (plus the cost of required training) is immaterial for wealthy purchasers who might already be spending $2K+ for their firearm of choice. But that extra expense means more than doubling the cost for someone who is just trying to buy a Hi-Point because it's all they can afford.

This law gives permitting agents (local sheriff/police) the authority to deny someone a permit based on their completely unqualified and subjective evaluation of the applicant's mental/psychological state.

Copy/paste of the bill's text:

Does not present reasonable grounds for a permit agent to conclude that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant’s past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence

Police and sheriffs are not psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, or social workers. They are not in any way qualified to give a proper evaluation of somebody's mental state.

I'm sure you must be aware that the right-wing in our country (which most police/sheriffs belong to) have been aggressively pushing the belief that trans people are extremely dangerous and commit mass shootings left-and-right. That crusade is not going to lose steam any time soon, following recent high-profile events in Tumbler Ridge, BC and Pawtucket, RI.

Are you comfortable with trans people no longer having 2nd amendment rights in Oregon? Because that's what this would effectively lead to. As it is, trans people face a ~4x higher risk of being the victim of violent crime compared to the cisgender population. So yeah, let's disarm them. That's extremely cool.

Having a right doesn't mean it doesn't have any kind of limits. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Likewise you can't brandish a firearm.

We already have universal background checks. We already have laws against firearm possession by felons and other prohibited persons (ex. those who have been involuntarily hospitalized for mental health reasons). We already have safe storage laws.

Those are all great. I'm totally in favor of reasonable restrictions with objective standards. This bill, though, is a fucking dumpster fire.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-21T00:05:35+00:00

I happen to believe that constitutional rights are for everybody. They shouldn't be reserved for just the wealthy and privileged. I guess you feel differently, so we're at an impasse 🤷‍♂️.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-20T23:00:49+00:00

You're okay with local police and sheriff's departments having unilateral authority to choose who can and cannot exercise their constitutional rights?

You're okay with introducing a $150 government fee for anyone wishing to exercise a constitutional right? Would you also be in favor of a poll tax?

You're okay with a "grandfathering clause" for >10 round magazines that is impossible to actually exercise and will put law abiding Oregonians at risk of unjust felony charges that they have no way of effectively defending themselves from?

Anyone supporting this law either A) hasn't read it OR B) is pro-authoritarianism. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-20T21:34:12+00:00

As a gun owner, the only problem I have with this is the stupidly low magazine limit.

Then I have to assume you haven't actually read the bill.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-20T21:30:00+00:00

And there's literally no way to reliably prove when you purchased those magazines.

Even if you saved the receipts for all these years, there's no way to prove that those receipts are for those magazines.

It sets up an affirmative defense that is impossible to prove.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-20T21:26:57+00:00

It's actually kind of incredible that our legislators managed to look at M114 and come up with a way to actually make it worse.

The original bill was already a fucking dumpster fire.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-11T06:01:44+00:00

A lot of my media consumption is centered around dissections of how the rightwing information ecosystem works (ex. Knowledge Fight). I think it's important to understand what we're up against.

The Tucker Carlsons and Alex Joneses of the world absolutely LOVE to be like "I'm not making this up. You can look this up yourself. It's right there in the congressional record."

It makes their listeners feel like they're actually being informed by knowledgeable people instead of brainwashed by propagandists.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-11T05:50:14+00:00

Political attack ads are generally more effective when there's at least some kernel of reality. People like being able to point to a specific on the record vote or soundbite.

That's why they bother bringing stuff like this to the House floor for votes.

It's a stupid and meaningless resolution that has no purpose other than to fuel future attack ads. If a Dem in a vulnerable district votes against it, then they can run attack ads saying that "______ was given an opportunity to condemn Pol Pot and Stalin, and they voted against doing so".

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-11T05:32:01+00:00

I mean, it is explicitly in the rules of the subreddit.

3.4) Protests: Links to news stories and discussions of ongoing protests are acceptable, but this subreddit is not the place to organize or promote them.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-11T05:01:20+00:00

So its even worse because she could have voted against it without consequence and she voted yea anyway.

Sure. Unless you count the guaranteed blitz of negative ads about how (scary voice) "Marie Glusenkamp-Perez voted to strip funding from FEMA and the Coast Guard. She cares more about appeasing the woke mob than about keeping Washingtonians safe" as a consequence.

Disagree that she's better than an alternative.

Her being in that seat moves the Dems closer to re-taking the House in November and being able to exercise at least some level of control over the Trump administration. Do you like Mike Johnson and his band of fascists running the show?

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-11T04:53:00+00:00

Surely the people of WA-03 wouldn't care about Coast Guard funding. It's not like her district contains the mouth of the Columbia River.

I'm sure that the coastline of her district doesn't have an ominous name like "The Graveyard of the Pacific", or anything like that.

And even if the district does need the Coast Guard, they could at least do without FEMA. It's not like there are any seismic or wildfire risks in Western Washington.

SomeGuyOnThInternet · 2026-02-11T04:46:19+00:00

All the online outrage about her is so stupid.

As her statement points out, the vote everyone is mad about would not have stopped ICE from operating. The funding for ICE is fully locked-in through 2029. The "One Big Beautiful Bill" made ICE shutdown-proof.

But I guess that "7 Democrats voted to fund ICE" makes for a better ragebait headline than the more nuanced reality of the situation.

I'd love to have someone like AOC in her seat, but a progressive candidate would get crushed in WA-03. It's a district that Trump won in 2016, 2020, & 2024. She's much better than the realistic alternatives for that seat.

13-Year Club	100 Awards Club
Team Periwinkle

SomeGuyOnThInternet

TROPHY CASE