Trump outrage of the day

[Little Aussie Battler]

As an Australian I don’t even pretend to understand US gun culture, but I do find it fascinating to read the wildly divergent views whenever an incident like this occurs (which is unfortunately far too often at the moment).

[scottish]

I like to think of it as the second amendment in action.

An ad hoc militia arms themselves and goes out to defend some businesses in a town where they don't even live.    In this town there are an awful lot of people upset because police shot an unarmed person of colour to death for no apparent reason.    What could go wrong?   

The only surprise is that it took so long to happen.

[GuitarStv]

Vigilantism wherr deadly force is used is a criminal act for a reason.

So true.



Right Trayvon Martin?


Oh.  Wait.  The vigilante who stalked and killed you (after being told not to by the 911 operator he called) was fully exonerated for his actions.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Now a person was shot to death at the Portland riots. This is awful.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Not that this an outrage, per se, given how high Trump has set the bar, but WTF - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/economy/trump-treasury-new-guidance-tax-holiday/index.html

The US Treasury Department released guidance Friday evening informing companies and workers how Trump's proposed tax holiday will apply to them.

Companies can stop withholding employees' payroll taxes starting September 1, although workers will have to pay the taxes by the end of April 2021. The new guidance, released together with the IRS, applies only to those whose bi-weekly paychecks are less than $4,000, the equivalent of $104,000 a year.
The guidance comes after President Donald Trump's August 8 executive action giving workers a tax holiday. It left open the possibility of forgiving the deferred tax later on.  But only Congress has the power to waive taxes, so all the president can do is postpone when they are due.

Great idea Trump, put more money in the pockets of middle / mid-upper income class workers now and screw them over next year when they have to pay it back.  Fortunately it is not a full year of federal tax, otherwise that could really cause whiplash!

[bacchi]

Not that this an outrage, per se, given how high Trump has set the bar, but WTF - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/economy/trump-treasury-new-guidance-tax-holiday/index.html

The US Treasury Department released guidance Friday evening informing companies and workers how Trump's proposed tax holiday will apply to them.

Companies can stop withholding employees' payroll taxes starting September 1, although workers will have to pay the taxes by the end of April 2021. The new guidance, released together with the IRS, applies only to those whose bi-weekly paychecks are less than $4,000, the equivalent of $104,000 a year.
The guidance comes after President Donald Trump's August 8 executive action giving workers a tax holiday. It left open the possibility of forgiving the deferred tax later on.  But only Congress has the power to waive taxes, so all the president can do is postpone when they are due.

Great idea Trump, put more money in the pockets of middle / mid-upper income class workers now and screw them over next year when they have to pay it back.  Fortunately it is not a full year of federal tax, otherwise that could really cause whiplash!

So how long can a President delay taxes? Could she/he delay taxes for all 4 years, creating a poison pill for the next President?

Congress has created an autocratic state by acceding power to the executive branch.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Not that this an outrage, per se, given how high Trump has set the bar, but WTF - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/economy/trump-treasury-new-guidance-tax-holiday/index.html

The US Treasury Department released guidance Friday evening informing companies and workers how Trump's proposed tax holiday will apply to them.

Companies can stop withholding employees' payroll taxes starting September 1, although workers will have to pay the taxes by the end of April 2021. The new guidance, released together with the IRS, applies only to those whose bi-weekly paychecks are less than $4,000, the equivalent of $104,000 a year.
The guidance comes after President Donald Trump's August 8 executive action giving workers a tax holiday. It left open the possibility of forgiving the deferred tax later on.  But only Congress has the power to waive taxes, so all the president can do is postpone when they are due.

Great idea Trump, put more money in the pockets of middle / mid-upper income class workers now and screw them over next year when they have to pay it back.  Fortunately it is not a full year of federal tax, otherwise that could really cause whiplash!

So how long can a President delay taxes? Could she/he delay taxes for all 4 years, creating a poison pill for the next President?

Congress has created an autocratic state by acceding power to the executive branch.

Don't give him ideas!

[nereo]

I like to think of it as the second amendment in action.

An ad hoc militia arms themselves and goes out to defend some businesses in a town where they don't even live.    In this town there are an awful lot of people upset because police shot an unarmed person of colour to death for no apparent reason.    What could go wrong?   

The only surprise is that it took so long to happen.

Echoes of the Jim Crow era...

[Samuel]

So why are they against policies which might start to put the preservation of the lives of black men into practice?

Another serious question:

Do you believe that defunding the police will reduce the number of lives lost (black, male, or otherwise)?

To me it seems pretty likely that it would do the opposite and that the cost will be disproportionately paid by poor people and people of color.

Sadly, I think you're right.

I'm a bit baffled why we on the left have apparently decided BLM activists have a better plan to fix policing issues than President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing did. We seem to be intent on running this Defund experiment in some of our more liberal cities, though. I'm also pretty sure the least well off will bear the brunt of the consequences but we shall see.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think it's about the electoral math.

I think the Democratic Party is worried that leftists and progressives will stay home (again?) since they went with another super-establishment candidate (maybe as a McCain-like sacrificial candidate since the economy was still doing well when they told the other candidates to fold up shop).

My guess is that Democratic support for these things stops the day after the polls close and the election is won.

If that's the case I'm even more worried. I suspect that in the states that will decide this election there are more potential Biden voters to lose from the middle than from the far left. Trump is terrible enough to motivate all but the most extreme of the left to vote for Biden but to pick up votes from the frustrated middle he needs to be careful how hard he embraces the ideological left. He needs to be seen as from the practical left.

[Abe]

I agree, we need to be careful. Defunding the police just sounds like anarchy, regardless of what the actual plan is, and the Republicans will continue to run with it. Should've gone with "more funding for social work!", which was a major part of the Taskforce's overall plan, but I guess that's not as catchy in a chant or hashtag. These cities also need to get the riots under control. More burnt buildings = 4 more years for Trump. Unless they're trying to go for a federal over-reach to make Trump look like an autocrat. Again I doubt that will fly with swing voters, they may even approve (Americans love us some military show of force). Regardless, wording is everything since a lot of people just inherently catch onto soundbites without thinking things through.

[NorthernBlitz]

So why are they against policies which might start to put the preservation of the lives of black men into practice?

Another serious question:

Do you believe that defunding the police will reduce the number of lives lost (black, male, or otherwise)?

To me it seems pretty likely that it would do the opposite and that the cost will be disproportionately paid by poor people and people of color.

Sadly, I think you're right.

I'm a bit baffled why we on the left have apparently decided BLM activists have a better plan to fix policing issues than President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing did. We seem to be intent on running this Defund experiment in some of our more liberal cities, though. I'm also pretty sure the least well off will bear the brunt of the consequences but we shall see.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think it's about the electoral math.

I think the Democratic Party is worried that leftists and progressives will stay home (again?) since they went with another super-establishment candidate (maybe as a McCain-like sacrificial candidate since the economy was still doing well when they told the other candidates to fold up shop).

My guess is that Democratic support for these things stops the day after the polls close and the election is won.

If that's the case I'm even more worried. I suspect that in the states that will decide this election there are more potential Biden voters to lose from the middle than from the far left. Trump is terrible enough to motivate all but the most extreme of the left to vote for Biden but to pick up votes from the frustrated middle he needs to be careful how hard he embraces the ideological left. He needs to be seen as from the practical left.

I see it pretty much this way exactly.

And while I don't think Ted Wheeler is some kind of double-secret Trump supporter, abdicating responsibility (re: 100 days of riots and now vigilante murder) as both the mayor and police chief seems to be making it easy for Trump to point out that those in the Democratic camp are strongly embracing the authoritarian left even if it's "just" by refusing to condemn them / allow for larger police presence to dissuade riots. There's a video of Ted Cruz doing that in the Kabuki theater of a senate committee already. And those kinds of words will continue to ring true while governments fail to even pretend to be preventing riots.

I'll also preemptively point back to my previous post about throwing the fucking book at vigilantes to show that I thought we should be doing that to Rittenhouse (before the shooting in Portland). I also said that I think we should be doing that to violent rioters (who are also trying to take the law into their own hands). I also think we should do that with the shooter in Portland (although I don't think they'be been ID'd yet).

Vigilantism is super-fucking dangerous and it shouldn't be tolerated in a functioning society (and while we seem to be teetering, we're still at least mostly in that category IMO). And I think it's stupid for anyone to turn a blind eye to it in cases where they agree with the supposed political ends.

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

[GuitarStv]

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

I don't disagree with you in general principal . . . but if police were prosecuted when appropriate, there would be no reason for protests at all.  The whole problem currently going on is fundamentally caused by systemic and long standing unwillingness to do this.

Because we currently treat police as above the law the majority of the time, adding more police to 'enforce the law' as a solution is unreasonable and untenable.  This will continue to be true until the problem identified with law enforcement has been rectified.

[ixtap]

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

In this case, the rest wouldn't have come about if we were doing that last bit consistently.

[NorthernBlitz]

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

I don't disagree with you in general principal . . . but if police were prosecuted when appropriate, there would be no reason for protests at all.  The whole problem currently going on is fundamentally caused by systemic and long standing unwillingness to do this.

Because we currently treat police as above the law the majority of the time, adding more police to 'enforce the law' as a solution is unreasonable and untenable.  This will continue to be true until the problem identified with law enforcement has been rectified.

I agree with you and tried to say as much in both posts.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make making in my original post and in the post that you quoted (note the red text).

[nereo]

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

I don't disagree with you in general principal . . . but if police were prosecuted when appropriate, there would be no reason for protests at all.  The whole problem currently going on is fundamentally caused by systemic and long standing unwillingness to do this.

Because we currently treat police as above the law the majority of the time, adding more police to 'enforce the law' as a solution is unreasonable and untenable.  This will continue to be true until the problem identified with law enforcement has been rectified.

I agree with you and tried to say as much in both posts.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make making in my original post and in the post that you quoted (note the red text).

[NorthernBlitz]

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

I don't disagree with you in general principal . . . but if police were prosecuted when appropriate, there would be no reason for protests at all.  The whole problem currently going on is fundamentally caused by systemic and long standing unwillingness to do this.

Because we currently treat police as above the law the majority of the time, adding more police to 'enforce the law' as a solution is unreasonable and untenable.  This will continue to be true until the problem identified with law enforcement has been rectified.

I agree with you and tried to say as much in both posts.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make making in my original post and in the post that you quoted (note the red text).

Not sure how useful it is. I can't vote (but will probably have citizenship by 2024). I think Steve is also Canadian.

[nereo]

Just take the win :-p

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I agree, we need to be careful. Defunding the police just sounds like anarchy, regardless of what the actual plan is, and the Republicans will continue to run with it. Should've gone with "more funding for social work!", which was a major part of the Taskforce's overall plan, but I guess that's not as catchy in a chant or hashtag. These cities also need to get the riots under control. More burnt buildings = 4 more years for Trump. Unless they're trying to go for a federal over-reach to make Trump look like an autocrat. Again I doubt that will fly with swing voters, they may even approve (Americans love us some military show of force). Regardless, wording is everything since a lot of people just inherently catch onto soundbites without thinking things through.

I agree that the name sounds poor. I do have to comment that in regards to the discussions on this - most everyone on here that I have read have not said defund the police to mean abolish the police (and in fact have taken offense at it and/or denigrated people that felt the phrase defund the police could be interpreted that way meant there could be problems). Last night, I saw a lively FB debate between one liberal person who posted along that line - defunding=/eliminate and was swamped by several far left people who were very literally saying eliminate all prisons, eliminate all police. There is a non-zero group of people that despite all rationale and reason think that a society can exist without a police force whatsoever, and I can't fathom how odd their world view must be to think that way.

[waltworks]

I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

[bacchi]

Overton Window?

"No police" isn't limited to the far left, of course. There have been far right militias around for years that don't accept authority, whether that authority is the IRS, BLM police and government land, or the local sheriff enforcing traffic laws.

[Glenstache]

I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

Or maybe it is just as simple as that the system has been so broken for a segment of our citizens for so long that the social contract feels broken. Yes, Biden would be better for social issues. Absolutely. But if you are a person who is weighing which old white guy to vote for vs worrying about literally being shot by the police, which is your priority? Yes the optics for white law and order voters is terrible, but the ask for people to really embrace the pacifism of MLK and John Lewis is a tough ask.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

The people burning and looting and setting up "autonomous zones" don't have any policy goals. Their aim is to bring down capitalism so they don't align themselves with either major party in the United States because both the Republicans and Democrats are capitalists. They are trying to collapse "the system". That's why it's so confusing. They aren't actually allied with Biden or any other political figure involved with governing on the center left or even the far left.

[LaineyAZ]

I'm glad to hear you say that.  So many people are convinced that those who are looting are also actually registered Democrats - my response has been, huh??

Our local newspaper had an editorial chiding Democrats for not condemning this urban unrest.  Again, my response is, those who are damaging property are non-aligned, why are people assuming they are Dems?

[Kris]

I'm glad to hear you say that.  So many people are convinced that those who are looting are also actually registered Democrats - my response has been, huh??

Our local newspaper had an editorial chiding Democrats for not condemning this urban unrest.  Again, my response is, those who are damaging property are non-aligned, why are people assuming they are Dems?

Because that’s what right-wing media and conservative FB memes are telling them.

[talltexan]

I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

The people burning and looting and setting up "autonomous zones" don't have any policy goals. Their aim is to bring down capitalism so they don't align themselves with either major party in the United States because both the Republicans and Democrats are capitalists. They are trying to collapse "the system". That's why it's so confusing. They aren't actually allied with Biden or any other political figure involved with governing on the center left or even the far left.

Thank. you. for. this.

[Travis]

Overton Window?

"No police" isn't limited to the far left, of course. There have been far right militias around for years that don't accept authority, whether that authority is the IRS, BLM police and government land, or the local sheriff enforcing traffic laws.

Funny how the "don't tread on me and my AR" folks like to act scared that a Democrat is going to knock on their door with a SWAT team to take away their assault rifles, but are demanding that those same police crush the protesters in the name of safety and order - protesters that are against violent and overreaching police.

[GuitarStv]

Overton Window?

"No police" isn't limited to the far left, of course. There have been far right militias around for years that don't accept authority, whether that authority is the IRS, BLM police and government land, or the local sheriff enforcing traffic laws.

Funny how the "don't tread on me and my AR" folks like to act scared that a Democrat is going to knock on their door with a SWAT team to take away their assault rifles, but are demanding that those same police crush the protesters in the name of safety and order - protesters that are against violent and overreaching police.

Armed white folks protesting having to wear masks are protected by the police with nary a problem.  When armed white terrorists take a government office by force, the police calmly discuss the matter and bend over backwards to minimize blood shed.  When armed white people go in with the intent to shoot up black protesters, the police ignore them after they commit murderer - instead focusing on the mostly black crowd.

I can't imagine where white guys with big guns could get their confidence in the police from.

[LennStar]

I agree that the name sounds poor. I do have to comment that in regards to the discussions on this - most everyone on here that I have read have not said defund the police to mean abolish the police (and in fact have taken offense at it and/or denigrated people that felt the phrase defund the police could be interpreted that way meant there could be problems). Last night, I saw a lively FB debate between one liberal person who posted along that line - defunding=/eliminate and was swamped by several far left people who were very literally saying eliminate all prisons, eliminate all police. There is a non-zero group of people that despite all rationale and reason think that a society can exist without a police force whatsoever, and I can't fathom how odd their world view must be to think that way.

How do you know those people were left?

For me there seems to be (in the US) more people on the far right that want to abolish all state institutions (the signal word here is "Free Market") than lefts, even if you count all anarchists as left.

[gentmach]

I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

They consider Biden to be weak and think he would be easily swayed to their line of thinking or completely deposed when the time comes.

[gentmach]

So why are they against policies which might start to put the preservation of the lives of black men into practice?

Another serious question:

Do you believe that defunding the police will reduce the number of lives lost (black, male, or otherwise)?

To me it seems pretty likely that it would do the opposite and that the cost will be disproportionately paid by poor people and people of color.

Sadly, I think you're right.

I'm a bit baffled why we on the left have apparently decided BLM activists have a better plan to fix policing issues than President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing did. We seem to be intent on running this Defund experiment in some of our more liberal cities, though. I'm also pretty sure the least well off will bear the brunt of the consequences but we shall see.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think it's about the electoral math.

I think the Democratic Party is worried that leftists and progressives will stay home (again?) since they went with another super-establishment candidate (maybe as a McCain-like sacrificial candidate since the economy was still doing well when they told the other candidates to fold up shop).

My guess is that Democratic support for these things stops the day after the polls close and the election is won.

If that's the case I'm even more worried. I suspect that in the states that will decide this election there are more potential Biden voters to lose from the middle than from the far left. Trump is terrible enough to motivate all but the most extreme of the left to vote for Biden but to pick up votes from the frustrated middle he needs to be careful how hard he embraces the ideological left. He needs to be seen as from the practical left.

I see it pretty much this way exactly.

And while I don't think Ted Wheeler is some kind of double-secret Trump supporter, abdicating responsibility (re: 100 days of riots and now vigilante murder) as both the mayor and police chief seems to be making it easy for Trump to point out that those in the Democratic camp are strongly embracing the authoritarian left even if it's "just" by refusing to condemn them / allow for larger police presence to dissuade riots. There's a video of Ted Cruz doing that in the Kabuki theater of a senate committee already. And those kinds of words will continue to ring true while governments fail to even pretend to be preventing riots.

I'll also preemptively point back to my previous post about throwing the fucking book at vigilantes to show that I thought we should be doing that to Rittenhouse (before the shooting in Portland). I also said that I think we should be doing that to violent rioters (who are also trying to take the law into their own hands). I also think we should do that with the shooter in Portland (although I don't think they'be been ID'd yet).

Vigilantism is super-fucking dangerous and it shouldn't be tolerated in a functioning society (and while we seem to be teetering, we're still at least mostly in that category IMO). And I think it's stupid for anyone to turn a blind eye to it in cases where they agree with the supposed political ends.

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

[NorthernBlitz]

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

[gentmach]

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

[GuitarStv]

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

Seems to be quite a false dichotomy you've created here.  There are a lot more than two opposite actions that can be taken.

How about:
- Trump publicly acknowledges the problems with policing in the country, and visibly does something to try to fix them.
- Trump stops using inflammatory language intended to increase tensions with protesters.
- Trump stops authorizing illegal detention of US citizens who are protesting peacefully.
- Trump stops indicating his support for police brutality.
etc.

Will that approach work to help diffuse the flames that the current president has fanned into a raging inferno at every possible turn so far?  I honestly don't know.  But the approach so far of angry rhetoric and brutal policing has failed so far.  Maybe it's time to try something that hasn't been attempted instead of continuing with failed policy.

Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation.

Hmm.  What happened the last time armed white people attacked a federal building without provocation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Radically softer and more easygoing response on the part of law enforcement, that's what.  That's certainly very different than the steadily climbing injury rate reported by unarmed and peaceful protestors and news media at the hands of the police during the George Floyd protests.  Maybe the problem is that not enough George Floyd protesters are armed?

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt.

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

[Davnasty]

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

This is something I've been considering lately. Not only do they have a difficult job to do, but the protesters they are tasked with managing are there to protest them and their livelihoods, or at least that's the perception of many police officers. Is it any surprise that the police are angry at the protesters?

Not that it excuses beating people who have their hands in the air, but I guess my point is that it makes for a very difficult situation. Local leaders have one tool to directly diffuse the situation and that tool isn't particularly interested in doing it's job*. Big picture, there's no way to address this that will have a perfect outcome. People are going to get hurt and property is going to be destroyed no matter what government decides to do. Hopefully they're making an honest attempt at minimizing that damage but I certainly don't have the expertise to critique their decisions.

And that's before you throw the fuel of left wing extremists who think violence is the answer, right wing extremists who want to make cities look bad, groups like boogaloo who's only goal is violence, opportunistic criminals, and fearmongering politicians who have scared more moderate people into thinking vigilantism and carrying guns is a solution.

*That's not meant to be a criticism of all police, but it's too many to just say it's a few bad apples either. This is a situational problem.

[Glenstache]

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

And what is the intent of the pro-Trump supporters (labelled based on the flags in the back of the pickup trucks) who have been driving to the protest areas and shooting people with paintball guns and using mace (or equivalent) on people? Are they also trying to get Trump to bring in the national guard (even though he has no authority to do that on domestic soil as that is the purview of the state governors)? Or are these people who see an opportunity to give it to the 'Libs? Honest question about how you perceive their actions.

[gentmach]

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

And what is the intent of the pro-Trump supporters (labelled based on the flags in the back of the pickup trucks) who have been driving to the protest areas and shooting people with paintball guns and using mace (or equivalent) on people? Are they also trying to get Trump to bring in the national guard (even though he has no authority to do that on domestic soil as that is the purview of the state governors)? Or are these people who see an opportunity to give it to the 'Libs? Honest question about how you perceive their actions.

They were stupid. Complete idiots. At this point conservatives should know that when they protest, any and all violence will be blamed on them. It is better to stay home and watch TV than go out and protest. Without opposition AntiFa will turn on themselves.

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

Seems to be quite a false dichotomy you've created here.  There are a lot more than two opposite actions that can be taken.

How about:
- Trump publicly acknowledges the problems with policing in the country, and visibly does something to try to fix them.
- Trump stops using inflammatory language intended to increase tensions with protesters.
- Trump stops authorizing illegal detention of US citizens who are protesting peacefully.
- Trump stops indicating his support for police brutality.
etc.

Will that approach work to help diffuse the flames that the current president has fanned into a raging inferno at every possible turn so far?  I honestly don't know.  But the approach so far of angry rhetoric and brutal policing has failed so far.  Maybe it's time to try something that hasn't been attempted instead of continuing with failed policy.

Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation.

Hmm.  What happened the last time armed white people attacked a federal building without provocation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Radically softer and more easygoing response on the part of law enforcement, that's what.  That's certainly very different than the steadily climbing injury rate reported by unarmed and peaceful protestors and news media at the hands of the police during the George Floyd protests.  Maybe the problem is that not enough George Floyd protesters are armed?

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt.

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

1. A change in Trump's demeanor will not help. Ted Wheeler has been on the rioters side since the beginning, even going out and getting tear gassed to show solidarity with them, and they still demand his resignation. What went right with Ted Wheelers approach?

2. You are comparing a nature refuge in the middle of nowhere to a courthouse in the middle of a metropolitan area.

For the Nature Refuge you block off the roads and wait them out because they will run out of food. Why risk lives when people would surrender eventually?

The Portland courthouse, people were attempting to seize. People broke in and started a fire. The feds decided to put up plywood. People attempted to break down the plywood. The feds put up a metal fence. People brought angle grinders to cut the fence and then started beating the plywood. These people could leave, get food, sleep and come back night after night.

I would say they were different situations.

3. You decide to try and refute my point about media manipulation with talking points from media manipulation. At this point with videos being available and a statement from his defense attorney explaining his side, you use your mind reading powers to understand his motives.

4.  The instigators are using the protests as cover. Bad actors are slapping "PRESS" on their shirts. The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.

[GuitarStv]

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

And what is the intent of the pro-Trump supporters (labelled based on the flags in the back of the pickup trucks) who have been driving to the protest areas and shooting people with paintball guns and using mace (or equivalent) on people? Are they also trying to get Trump to bring in the national guard (even though he has no authority to do that on domestic soil as that is the purview of the state governors)? Or are these people who see an opportunity to give it to the 'Libs? Honest question about how you perceive their actions.

They were stupid. Complete idiots. At this point conservatives should know that when they protest, any and all violence will be blamed on them. It is better to stay home and watch TV than go out and protest. Without opposition AntiFa will turn on themselves.

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

Seems to be quite a false dichotomy you've created here.  There are a lot more than two opposite actions that can be taken.

How about:
- Trump publicly acknowledges the problems with policing in the country, and visibly does something to try to fix them.
- Trump stops using inflammatory language intended to increase tensions with protesters.
- Trump stops authorizing illegal detention of US citizens who are protesting peacefully.
- Trump stops indicating his support for police brutality.
etc.

Will that approach work to help diffuse the flames that the current president has fanned into a raging inferno at every possible turn so far?  I honestly don't know.  But the approach so far of angry rhetoric and brutal policing has failed so far.  Maybe it's time to try something that hasn't been attempted instead of continuing with failed policy.

Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation.

Hmm.  What happened the last time armed white people attacked a federal building without provocation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Radically softer and more easygoing response on the part of law enforcement, that's what.  That's certainly very different than the steadily climbing injury rate reported by unarmed and peaceful protestors and news media at the hands of the police during the George Floyd protests.  Maybe the problem is that not enough George Floyd protesters are armed?

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt.

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

1. A change in Trump's demeanor will not help. Ted Wheeler has been on the rioters side since the beginning, even going out and getting tear gassed to show solidarity with them, and they still demand his resignation. What went right with Ted Wheelers approach?

Can you point to a time where Trump changed his demeanor towards the protesters that proves your claim here?

2. You are comparing a nature refuge in the middle of nowhere to a courthouse in the middle of a metropolitan area.

For the Nature Refuge you block off the roads and wait them out because they will run out of food. Why risk lives when people would surrender eventually?

The Portland courthouse, people were attempting to seize. People broke in and started a fire. The feds decided to put up plywood. People attempted to break down the plywood. The feds put up a metal fence. People brought angle grinders to cut the fence and then started beating the plywood. These people could leave, get food, sleep and come back night after night.

I would say they were different situations.

Agreed, they're different situations.  The federal building that I mentioned was hijacked by armed gunman . . . who brought firearms, supplies, and ammunition in a large scale and premeditated coordinated attack.  As you mentioned, one or two of the protesters had power tools.

3. You decide to try and refute my point about media manipulation with talking points from media manipulation. At this point with videos being available and a statement from his defense attorney explaining his side, you use your mind reading powers to understand his motives.

Media manipulation has little to do with it.  I believe that the motives of a man who brings an assault rifle to a protest because he violently disagrees with the protesters does indeed have bad intentions.  This seems to have been corroborated by his (very predictable) actions.  But you're right, this is not what the statements he released to the press after the fact to prove his innocence indicate that he was thinking.

So, by that token . . . you've repeatedly claimed that Ted Wheeler and Kate Brown want the president to march his jackbooted thugs into town without authorization.  Can you point to the times they've been quoted saying this?  Or are you using media driven talking points and mind reading powers to understand their motives?

:P

4.  The instigators are using the protests as cover. Bad actors are slapping "PRESS" on their shirts. The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.

In your opinion . . . if one bad person puts 'PRESS' on their shirt who doesn't work for the press . . . the police should be given free reign to attack the press forevermore?  This includes when the people the police are attacking are:
- clearly marked as press
- obviously not criminal / performing any misdeeds
- obviously not a threat of any kind
- are displaying visible press cards and identification
?


https://twitter.com/i/status/1266546753182056453
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266925551941541890
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266945268567678976
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266910910137995264
https://twitter.com/i/status/1267294124123750402
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266919447970942986

I can find hundreds of video clips of police purposely targeting press who were clearly doing their jobs and not a threat.  Leaving aside the question of whether or not 'fake press' is really a thing as you're claiming . . . do you really argue that this is no problem?

The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.

If the police rooted out troublemakers, there wouldn't be any protests to begin with.  Why do you believe that protesters have to be held to a much higher standard than police officers?

[brandon1827]

I also wanted to make a small point about using the term "Antifa" to refer to protesters. That term is a complete fabrication of the extreme right wing media, so the point about media manipulation after that just rings a bit hollow

[talltexan]

@brandon1827 , thank you, I've been curious to see who will respond to Sen. Paul's subpoena for financial and travel records of "Antifa"

[Glenstache]

@brandon1827 , thank you, I've been curious to see who will respond to Sen. Paul's subpoena for financial and travel records of "Antifa"

How about the travel itinerary of Dwight Eisenhower during WWII? Pretty sure that was an antifa(cist) trip.

[bacchi]

@brandon1827 , thank you, I've been curious to see who will respond to Sen. Paul's subpoena for financial and travel records of "Antifa"

Lol. That is laughably out-of-touch.

[Samuel]

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt..

So the right wing kid who brings a gun and medical kit to the protests and spent his day standing in front of businesses so they don't get torched, washing off graffiti, carrying around a fire extinguisher and running away from aggressors whenever possible came with the intent to commit murder but the left wing guy who brought a gun and a medical kit to the protests was just prepared to defend himself should he be attacked?

[gentmach]

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

And what is the intent of the pro-Trump supporters (labelled based on the flags in the back of the pickup trucks) who have been driving to the protest areas and shooting people with paintball guns and using mace (or equivalent) on people? Are they also trying to get Trump to bring in the national guard (even though he has no authority to do that on domestic soil as that is the purview of the state governors)? Or are these people who see an opportunity to give it to the 'Libs? Honest question about how you perceive their actions.

They were stupid. Complete idiots. At this point conservatives should know that when they protest, any and all violence will be blamed on them. It is better to stay home and watch TV than go out and protest. Without opposition AntiFa will turn on themselves.

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

Seems to be quite a false dichotomy you've created here.  There are a lot more than two opposite actions that can be taken.

How about:
- Trump publicly acknowledges the problems with policing in the country, and visibly does something to try to fix them.
- Trump stops using inflammatory language intended to increase tensions with protesters.
- Trump stops authorizing illegal detention of US citizens who are protesting peacefully.
- Trump stops indicating his support for police brutality.
etc.

Will that approach work to help diffuse the flames that the current president has fanned into a raging inferno at every possible turn so far?  I honestly don't know.  But the approach so far of angry rhetoric and brutal policing has failed so far.  Maybe it's time to try something that hasn't been attempted instead of continuing with failed policy.

Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation.

Hmm.  What happened the last time armed white people attacked a federal building without provocation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Radically softer and more easygoing response on the part of law enforcement, that's what.  That's certainly very different than the steadily climbing injury rate reported by unarmed and peaceful protestors and news media at the hands of the police during the George Floyd protests.  Maybe the problem is that not enough George Floyd protesters are armed?

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt.

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

1. A change in Trump's demeanor will not help. Ted Wheeler has been on the rioters side since the beginning, even going out and getting tear gassed to show solidarity with them, and they still demand his resignation. What went right with Ted Wheelers approach?

Can you point to a time where Trump changed his demeanor towards the protesters that proves your claim here?

2. You are comparing a nature refuge in the middle of nowhere to a courthouse in the middle of a metropolitan area.

For the Nature Refuge you block off the roads and wait them out because they will run out of food. Why risk lives when people would surrender eventually?

The Portland courthouse, people were attempting to seize. People broke in and started a fire. The feds decided to put up plywood. People attempted to break down the plywood. The feds put up a metal fence. People brought angle grinders to cut the fence and then started beating the plywood. These people could leave, get food, sleep and come back night after night.

I would say they were different situations.

Agreed, they're different situations.  The federal building that I mentioned was hijacked by armed gunman . . . who brought firearms, supplies, and ammunition in a large scale and premeditated coordinated attack.  As you mentioned, one or two of the protesters had power tools.

3. You decide to try and refute my point about media manipulation with talking points from media manipulation. At this point with videos being available and a statement from his defense attorney explaining his side, you use your mind reading powers to understand his motives.

Media manipulation has little to do with it.  I believe that the motives of a man who brings an assault rifle to a protest because he violently disagrees with the protesters does indeed have bad intentions.  This seems to have been corroborated by his (very predictable) actions.  But you're right, this is not what the statements he released to the press after the fact to prove his innocence indicate that he was thinking.

So, by that token . . . you've repeatedly claimed that Ted Wheeler and Kate Brown want the president to march his jackbooted thugs into town without authorization.  Can you point to the times they've been quoted saying this?  Or are you using media driven talking points and mind reading powers to understand their motives?

:P

4.  The instigators are using the protests as cover. Bad actors are slapping "PRESS" on their shirts. The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.

In your opinion . . . if one bad person puts 'PRESS' on their shirt who doesn't work for the press . . . the police should be given free reign to attack the press forevermore?  This includes when the people the police are attacking are:
- clearly marked as press
- obviously not criminal / performing any misdeeds
- obviously not a threat of any kind
- are displaying visible press cards and identification
?


https://twitter.com/i/status/1266546753182056453
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266925551941541890
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266945268567678976
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266910910137995264
https://twitter.com/i/status/1267294124123750402
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266919447970942986

I can find hundreds of video clips of police purposely targeting press who were clearly doing their jobs and not a threat.  Leaving aside the question of whether or not 'fake press' is really a thing as you're claiming . . . do you really argue that this is no problem?

The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.

If the police rooted out troublemakers, there wouldn't be any protests to begin with.  Why do you believe that protesters have to be held to a much higher standard than police officers?

1. One guy gives into their demands and is still reviled. Why do you think Trump doing the same would help?

2. Are you disappointed the Feds didn't pull another "Waco?" That they didn't arm up and charge into the place?

The Feds used non-lethal munitions and crowd control to disperse the attackers. What else would have done?

3. If two videos showing him being chased and a witness saying the AntiFa side started it can't convince you, there is no helping you.

As for the mayor and Governor, well, they have a duty to uphold the law, correct? They have to make sure the city and state stays functional so people can go about their daily lives. It sounds like they have abandoned their duties.

Nor is this an isolated incident. Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Kenosha, New York, all these places has had violent riots. What else could be the common factor? Seems like Democratic strong holds. Why would Democrats all of a sudden decide their cities needed a taste of lawlessness?

4. Were they told that an "unlawful assembly" had been declared? Having a press badges does not allow you to ignore police instructions. Does having a press padge mean laws suddenly don't apply to you?

5. The violence detracts from the message. Protesters should report anyone that is instigating violence or is looting. I believe they have agency of their own to do such things.

I also wanted to make a small point about using the term "Antifa" to refer to protesters. That term is a complete fabrication of the extreme right wing media, so the point about media manipulation after that just rings a bit hollow

Facebook banned AntiFa.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/facebook-qanon-antifa-398672

Teespring banned AntiFa.
https://mobile.twitter.com/teespring/status/1291855415320420353

Why are left leaning companies banning "AntiFa?"

Why are they organizing on Twitter?
https://mobile.twitter.com/antifaintl/status/1293522323966955522
https://mobile.twitter.com/RoseCityAntifa/status/956714504502431745

Why do they have a snack van?
https://mobile.twitter.com/SnackVanTM

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt..

So the right wing kid who brings a gun and medical kit to the protests and spent his day standing in front of businesses so they don't get torched, washing off graffiti, carrying around a fire extinguisher and running away from aggressors whenever possible came with the intent to commit murder but the left wing guy who brought a gun and a medical kit to the protests was just prepared to defend himself should he be attacked?

Don't expect consistency. Just don't.

[scottish]

I read this article today.   It compares US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan to police actions back home.   https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/police-military-tactics-lessons-protests.html

Paul Szoldra, a former Marine sergeant who served in Afghanistan and is now editor in chief of the military website Task & Purpose, put it more bluntly.* After a policeman in Kenosha, Wisconsin, fired seven bullets into the back of Jacob Blake, Szoldra tweeted, “If I shot a civilian 7 times in Afghanistan after he tried to get into a car, I’d be court-martialed for murder, [my] general would apologize, & my Marines would be pissed because I made their job harder.”

The author claims that the military have much better training than the police.     If a US marine got out of line in interactions with the locals, the rest of his unit would help to re-socialize him.    This is the opposite of the police, where the blue brotherhood would close ranks and try to hide the malfeasance.

Any comments on this from former/server members of the US military?     I know Trump pardoned a US navy officer for shooting some locals, but hopefully that was the exception, not the norm.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

The people burning and looting and setting up "autonomous zones" don't have any policy goals. Their aim is to bring down capitalism so they don't align themselves with either major party in the United States because both the Republicans and Democrats are capitalists. They are trying to collapse "the system". That's why it's so confusing. They aren't actually allied with Biden or any other political figure involved with governing on the center left or even the far left.

Thank. you. for. this.

That's great. I don't disagree with you that rank and file Democrats are not promoting anarchy/freeing everyone from prisons, immediately abolishing all police departments/etc.

That being said there are people that feel that way, and they're making a big splash with their violent actions/loud voices. So, if you disagree with them, it's probably a good idea to stop using phrases that can very easily be associated with it like defund the police. Just a thought...

[bacchi]

That's great. I don't disagree with you that rank and file Democrats are not promoting anarchy/freeing everyone from prisons, immediately abolishing all police departments/etc.

That being said there are people that feel that way, and they're making a big splash with their violent actions/loud voices. So, if you disagree with them, it's probably a good idea to stop using phrases that can very easily be associated with it like defund the police. Just a thought...

Eh, haters gonna hate.

That is, people who would be persuaded by the tactic of "They want to defund the police! The suburbs are going to be run over by the blacks antifa!!11!" won't hear or won't believe that Biden and leftist Democrats don't want to 100%, totally, defund the police and set criminals free.

The Republican convention, though, continually tried to make Biden a radical. They couldn't do it directly because he's been a moderate Democrat his entire life so they're now trying to paint him as a tool for radicals.


tl;dr The lines are drawn. No Foxnews-watching Republican is going to change their mind because Biden's "defund" policy is a baby step.

[Travis]

I read this article today.   It compares US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan to police actions back home.   https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/police-military-tactics-lessons-protests.html

Paul Szoldra, a former Marine sergeant who served in Afghanistan and is now editor in chief of the military website Task & Purpose, put it more bluntly.* After a policeman in Kenosha, Wisconsin, fired seven bullets into the back of Jacob Blake, Szoldra tweeted, “If I shot a civilian 7 times in Afghanistan after he tried to get into a car, I’d be court-martialed for murder, [my] general would apologize, & my Marines would be pissed because I made their job harder.”

The author claims that the military have much better training than the police.     If a US marine got out of line in interactions with the locals, the rest of his unit would help to re-socialize him.    This is the opposite of the police, where the blue brotherhood would close ranks and try to hide the malfeasance.

Any comments on this from former/server members of the US military?     I know Trump pardoned a US navy officer for shooting some locals, but hopefully that was the exception, not the norm.

I don't know if we have "better training," but we certainly have more restrictive rules of engagement.  In the US, a police officer can kill because he felt he was in danger or thought the suspect was armed. Even if no weapon or malicious intent are found after the fact, the police officer is exonerated because he acted within procedure. Of course nobody seems concerned that approved procedures allow for these sorts of actions.  If I shoot an unarmed civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan on purpose and that person had no weapon and displayed no immediate aggression towards me, I'm going to court martial.

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

This is something I've been considering lately. Not only do they have a difficult job to do, but the protesters they are tasked with managing are there to protest them and their livelihoods, or at least that's the perception of many police officers. Is it any surprise that the police are angry at the protesters?

Not that it excuses beating people who have their hands in the air, but I guess my point is that it makes for a very difficult situation. Local leaders have one tool to directly diffuse the situation and that tool isn't particularly interested in doing it's job*. Big picture, there's no way to address this that will have a perfect outcome. People are going to get hurt and property is going to be destroyed no matter what government decides to do. Hopefully they're making an honest attempt at minimizing that damage but I certainly don't have the expertise to critique their decisions.

And that's before you throw the fuel of left wing extremists who think violence is the answer, right wing extremists who want to make cities look bad, groups like boogaloo who's only goal is violence, opportunistic criminals, and fearmongering politicians who have scared more moderate people into thinking vigilantism and carrying guns is a solution.

*That's not meant to be a criticism of all police, but it's too many to just say it's a few bad apples either. This is a situational problem.

And those police unions then hold the city hostage by staying home when they're criticized.  How dare anybody question the manner in which they beat and shoot people in the name of order?

[ixtap]

Getting shot in the back is just like being a golf shot that gets flubbed.

[bacchi]

Getting shot in the back is just like being a golf shot that gets flubbed.

And shadow people are controlling Biden.

That interview was embarrassing. I'm surprised they didn't try to keep it under wraps.

[ministashy]

On the flip side of all the conservatives who don't like the 'defund the police' slogan, some food for thought:

If crime goes up, the police go to the public and say they need more money/officers/guns to keep them safe.

If crime goes down, the police go the public and say 'see what a good job we did?'  Keep giving us the same amount of money or the criminals will come back and you won't be safe.'

Regardless of what the crime statistics are, if the public try to cut police budgets, or push back on police solidarity, then the unions close ranks and tell them that if they don't get the money/officers/guns they want, crime will go up and nobody will be safe.  In extreme cases, you will have police choosing not to respond to calls to punish certain districts, or have precincts call off with the 'blue flu'.

And when an officer shoots a civilian--regardless of what that civilian was doing, regardless of what they were accused of, regardless of how armed or unarmed they were, police will always close ranks and claim the shooting was justified.  The officer who did it gets a few days of vacation (administrative leave), paid for by the public.  If the shooting is particularly egregious, then he gets fired, and the department sued--but the public still has to pay for any damages, not the PD budget, and there is absolutely nothing keeping that officer from moving to the next department and getting a new job.

I appreciate that police have a tough job, and I used to give them a lot more of the benefit of the doubt.  ('A few bad apples' and all that.)  But the more I learn about how departments operate, the more I feel like there are far too many out there that are acting less like law enforcement and more like a protection racket.  'Give us money and don't question what we do, or you won't like what happens to your neighborhoods.'