U.S. swoops down on Portland protesters after Trump order to protect monuments

[simple1]

14 hours ago, Logosone said:

The Department of Home Security has published a list of the anarchist violence and vandalism it found in Portland:

 

Acting Secretary Wolf Condemns The Rampant Long-Lasting Violence In Portland

 

“The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city. Each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it."

 

• Violent Anarchists broke the front window of the Hatfield U.S. Courthouse and shot fireworks into the building.
• Violent anarchists firebombed the building. Federal law enforcement extinguished the fire.
• Around 1,000 violent anarchists spray painted, threw rocks, and shot fireworks (including mortar style fireworks) at the Hatfield Courthouse. They also destroyed a security camera at the facility.
• Multiple individuals were seen carrying rifles, including the driver of a vehicle who attempted to strike a Portland Police Bureau officer with his car in front of the Hatfield Courthouse.

 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/07/16/acting-secretary-wolf-condemns-rampant-long-lasting-violence-portland

 

Absolute chaos. High time order was restored in Portland.

Wow - a major insurrectionist uprising ???? better send in the 1st airborne.

Edited July 20, 2020 by simple1

[stevenl]

17 hours ago, Logosone said:

Yes, it's an exact quote. I copied and pasted it. It cannot be anything else. 

 

Kindly point out the inaccuracy of that quote with the first sentence in the article.

 

Of course you take flight, because you know very well that article makes clear the federal law basis for Trump's intervention.

 

The comparison with Eisenhower sending federal troops to enforce US law in Little Rock is perfectly valid, Trump sent federal troops to enforce US law in Portland.

 

 

On laptop now, so can see the NYT again and the text. Yes, you did quote correctly, as I said I could not see the original article anymore, think I opened it too many times, and had the intro text in my mind.

 

However your interpretation of the article is IMO totally wrong, and also your interpretation of the text "The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens." is incorrect (also bad English but that is for a different discussion). It says the agency created the broad legal authority, an authority which is questioned in the article. I am much more in line with this, also from the article "“An interpretation of that authority so broadly seems to undermine all the other careful checks and balances on D.H.S.’s power because the officers’ power is effectively limitless and all encompassing,”"

 

The author's opinion is expressed in the intro, "The Department of Homeland Security can point to federal statutes protecting property to justify the arrests of protesters in Portland, Ore., but whether they stretched the law would be up to a judge.".

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

On laptop now, so can see the NYT again and the text. Yes, you did quote correctly, as I said I could not see the original article anymore, think I opened it too many times, and had the intro text in my mind.

 

However your interpretation of the article is IMO totally wrong, and also your interpretation of the text "The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens." is incorrect (also bad English but that is for a different discussion). It says the agency created the broad legal authority, an authority which is questioned in the article. I am much more in line with this, also from the article "“An interpretation of that authority so broadly seems to undermine all the other careful checks and balances on D.H.S.’s power because the officers’ power is effectively limitless and all encompassing,”"

 

The author's opinion is expressed in the intro, "The Department of Homeland Security can point to federal statutes protecting property to justify the arrests of protesters in Portland, Ore., but whether they stretched the law would be up to a judge.".

So even though you could not see the original article at all you accuse me publicly of modifying the quote and posting an inaccurate quote? Wow.

 

At least you made clear the quote was accurate, I'd say "apology accepted" but I don't see an actual apology. Doesn't really matter, everyone could see the quote was 100% accurate.

 

Your Derridaesque analysis of the text notwithstanding, and whilst I admire the hard work in trying first to imply I quoted inaccurately and then to argue I interpret the article inaccurately, it is apparent that the article 

 

1) Gives the very clear federal law basis which allows the DHS to be deployed

 

2) Specifies that even without any invitation by the governor of Oregon federal troops can still arrest suspects on the basis of federal law alone.

 

As you know the NYT is rabidly anti-Trump, so of course they throw in a few dissenting civil liberties lawyers and say it will be decided in court. Of course if somebody starts a legal action it is decided in court. It is extremely easy to start a legal action, anyone can do it at any time. And yes the courts will decide.

 

As you know this was done when Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock, it was argued in court, and the court found in favour of the president's right to send in federal troops to uphold US law. Exactly what Trump did.

 

This shows clearly that the US is precisely NOT a dictatorship as many on the hysterical, hyperbolic rainbow left claim, but rather a country where the rule of law reigns supreme. As one would expect in a democracy.

 

 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

On 7/18/2020 at 7:29 AM, stevenl said:

This behaviour is very much reminiscent of that of thought police forces in countries like Russia, China, and others where free thought is not allowed.

 

Yes much better to let the left wing Mayors and Governors stand police down and let the "protesters" do what they like.

 

A bit of looting, thieving, assault, robbery, criminal damage. All good to destabilize society - which is what they really want. Especially with election near. 

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

For sure she represents a clear and present danger to the USA - Lol

 

She makes it very clear what ANTIFA's real agenda is.

 

So if you want a new socialist paradise, with the police replaced with a workers' militia and volunteer "good citizens", everything state run, with no democracy, no realfree speech (policed by denouncement and cancelling), and all wealth and property being controlled by "the state" i.e. the ANTIFA approved politicians, then hey, just let them carry on.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Wow - a major insurrectionist uprising ???? better send in the 1st airborne.

 

So you think all that is acceptable behavior? And the response of do nothing but hamstring law enforcement is an acceptable response by elected civic leaders?

 

You certainly have the right poster name!

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So you think all that is acceptable behavior? And the response of do nothing but hamstring

18 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

She makes it very clear what ANTIFA's real agenda is.

 

So if you want a new socialist paradise, with the police replaced with a workers' militia and volunteer "good citizens", everything state run, with no democracy, no realfree speech (policed by denouncement and cancelling), and all wealth and property being controlled by "the state" i.e. the ANTIFA approved politicians, then hey, just let them carry on.

law enforcement is an acceptable response by elected civic leaders?

 

You certainly have the right poster name!

Less of the childish personal insult, only makes you appear to be immature. No. Not acceptable behaviour, but not exactly a viable threat to national security with all the Hyperbole of doom and gloom from the trump admin. 

[simple1]

38 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

She makes it very clear what ANTIFA's real agenda is.

 

So if you want a new socialist paradise, with the police replaced with a workers' militia and volunteer "good citizens", everything state run, with no democracy, no realfree speech (policed by denouncement and cancelling), and all wealth and property being controlled by "the state" i.e. the ANTIFA approved politicians, then hey, just let them carry on.

Como on, Antifa are going to take over the US - get real - they are a very minor player in the scheme of things. Free speech? Who's the person who calls out critics as traitors and scum and represents the hard right, concentration of wealth for the 'elite', with a reasonable prospect of an accelerating move to authoritarian government.

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Como on, Antifa are going to take over the US - get real - they are a very minor player in the scheme of things. Free speech? Who's the person who calls out critics as traitors and scum and represents the hard right, concentration of wealth for the 'elite', with a reasonable prospect of an accelerating move to authoritarian government.

Antifa are so minor that they are represented in virtually every country in the western world, USA, UK, Germany, France, Austria, Holland, Spain, Italy, Canada etc etc, so minor that their recent orgies of urban destruction spread through the entire USA and many parts of Europe.

 

Of course Antifa are a minority, however, there are enough of them to represent a very clear threat to the security of citizens, to their right to enjoy their cities in peace and quiet.

 

Or would you have liked to go shopping at Macy's when Antifa were trashing New York?

 

A very minor player with a huge violence potential.

[simple1]

35 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Antifa are so minor that they are represented in virtually every country in the western world, USA, UK, Germany, France, Austria, Holland, Spain, Italy, Canada etc etc, so minor that their recent orgies of urban destruction spread through the entire USA and many parts of Europe.

 

Of course Antifa are a minority, however, there are enough of them to represent a very clear threat to the security of citizens, to their right to enjoy their cities in peace and quiet.

 

Or would you have liked to go shopping at Macy's when Antifa were trashing New York?

 

A very minor player with a huge violence potential.

Antifa have been around for decades and have realistically achieved nothing other than some disturbances.

 

Antifa, who are they and are they a threat.

 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/who-are-antifa-and-are-they-threat

 

Macy's was broken into by looters, no mention of Antifa being responsible. And...

 

Despite claims by President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr, there is scant evidence that loosely organized anti-fascists are a significant player in protests.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/antifa-protests-george-floyd.html

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Antifa are so minor that they are represented in virtually every country in the western world, USA, UK, Germany, France, Austria, Holland, Spain, Italy, Canada etc etc, so minor that their recent orgies of urban destruction spread through the entire USA and many parts of Europe.

 

Of course Antifa are a minority, however, there are enough of them to represent a very clear threat to the security of citizens, to their right to enjoy their cities in peace and quiet.

 

Or would you have liked to go shopping at Macy's when Antifa were trashing New York?

 

A very minor player with a huge violence potential.

As pointed out to you quite a few times, with links from those Antifa loving institutions like FBI, it is not Antifa but the right wing extremists who are the threat.

[riclag]

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

So even though you could not see the original article at all you accuse me publicly of modifying the quote and posting an inaccurate quote? Wow.

 

At least you made clear the quote was accurate, I'd say "apology accepted" but I don't see an actual apology. Doesn't really matter, everyone could see the quote was 100% accurate.

 

Your Derridaesque analysis of the text notwithstanding, and whilst I admire the hard work in trying first to imply I quoted inaccurately and then to argue I interpret the article inaccurately, it is apparent that the article 

 

1) Gives the very clear federal law basis which allows the DHS to be deployed

 

2) Specifies that even without any invitation by the governor of Oregon federal troops can still arrest suspects on the basis of federal law alone.

 

As you know the NYT is rabidly anti-Trump, so of course they throw in a few dissenting civil liberties lawyers and say it will be decided in court. Of course if somebody starts a legal action it is decided in court. It is extremely easy to start a legal action, anyone can do it at any time. And yes the courts will decide.

 

As you know this was done when Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock, it was argued in court, and the court found in favour of the president's right to send in federal troops to uphold US law. Exactly what Trump did.

 

This shows clearly that the US is precisely NOT a dictatorship as many on the hysterical, hyperbolic rainbow left claim, but rather a country where the rule of law reigns supreme. As one would expect in a democracy.

 

 

 

 

We all seen during the last month or so how these protest have a violent element.

Can you imagine the abuse  many people who work and live in that area ,were subjected too.

Some of these protestors went there with the intention to cause mayhem.

Portland and Seattle news videos in this thread have shown this by the tactics they use , by using umbrellas as a shield to block police tear gas projectiles.

[Chiphigh]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

For sure she represents a clear and present danger to the USA - Lol

 

Antifa and BLM? 

 

Actually, they certainly are A VERY serious problem. Unless you are a rabid leftist, then they represent the Utopia of your ideological fantasies. 

[Chiphigh]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Are the major or governor from the 'far left', No - just  trump administration's usual hyperbole and divisiveness. I suggest you look up the concerns why regional  executives did not want Federal law enforcement resources, which do appear to have been accurately forecast.

Yes the gov and the mayor are certainly left wing idiots. 

 

7 weeks of riots is not an acceptable solution to govern. 

 

These weak feckless progressive stooges are not willing to deal with the problem in any measurable way. So the adults will. 

 

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Yes the gov and the mayor are certainly left wing idiots. 

 

7 weeks of riots is not an acceptable solution to govern. 

 

These weak feckless progressive stooges are not willing to deal with the problem in any measurable way. So the adults will. 

 

I suggest you look up the concerns why regional  executives did not want Federal law enforcement resources, which do appear to have been accurately forecast.

[Chiphigh]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Wow - a major insurrectionist uprising ???? better send in the 1st airborne.

Is 23 million in damages just a walk in the park for leftists? 

 

You seem hell bent on denying the truth and downplay every event to feed your narrow phony narrative. 

 

 

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

 

Antifa and BLM? 

 

Actually, they certainly are A VERY serious problem. Unless you are a rabid leftist, then they represent the Utopia of your ideological fantasies. 

Reword...

 

Actually, they certainly are A VERY serious problem if you are a rabid trump supporter,

[simple1]

8 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Is 23 million in damages just a walk in the park for leftists? 

 

You seem hell bent on denying the truth and downplay every event to feed your narrow phony narrative. 

 

 

damage by whom - have authorities been been able to empirically identify which group caused the majority of the damage - believe elsewhere predominantly by criminal elements. As mentioned in the video report above also a small group of 'agitator corps'. Again, as reported elsewhere the report claims Fed involvement is not necessarily helpful

Edited July 20, 2020 by simple1

[Chiphigh]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Como on, Antifa are going to take over the US - get real - they are a very minor player in the scheme of things. Free speech? Who's the person who calls out critics as traitors and scum and represents the hard right, concentration of wealth for the 'elite', with a reasonable prospect of an accelerating move to authoritarian government.

So what amount of destruction in a city is the amount that would require you to actually deal with reality? 

 

Just a number, 20 million? 50 million? 

 

How many businesses that are shuttered while this stupidity is allowed to continue will be enough for you to decide what is not trivial? What's the number? 

 

How many people need to be harassed or attacked before you can decide to think that is not a trivial matter to be shrugged off as a minor inconvenience? What's your number? 

 

Unbelievable man. 

 

[Sujo]

19 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

So what amount of destruction in a city is the amount that would require you to actually deal with reality? 

 

Just a number, 20 million? 50 million? 

 

How many businesses that are shuttered while this stupidity is allowed to continue will be enough for you to decide what is not trivial? What's the number? 

 

How many people need to be harassed or attacked before you can decide to think that is not a trivial matter to be shrugged off as a minor inconvenience? What's your number? 

 

Unbelievable man. 

 

And yet the fbi says right wing groups are the concern.

 

Oh nooo everyone is against us, we cannot be wrong, we are trump supporters and love conspiracies. Bring out rudyyyyy.

[checkered flag]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And yet the fbi says right wing groups are the concern.

 

Oh nooo everyone is against us, we cannot be wrong, we are trump supporters and love conspiracies. Bring out rudyyyyy.

What the FBI said was just initially, but wasn't backed up with much. Although right wing thugs undoubtedly exist, the real culprits are the far left groups that seem to be the darling of the democrats. Very sad when politicians rely on mob rule instead of debating facts. It's been that way since hillary lost and refused to accept defeat. 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

What the FBI said was just initially, but wasn't backed up with much. Although right wing thugs undoubtedly exist, the real culprits are the far left groups that seem to be the darling of the democrats. Very sad when politicians rely on mob rule instead of debating facts. It's been that way since hillary lost and refused to accept defeat. 

Beware those pesky facts.

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

What the FBI said was just initially, but wasn't backed up with much. Although right wing thugs undoubtedly exist, the real culprits are the far left groups that seem to be the darling of the democrats. Very sad when politicians rely on mob rule instead of debating facts. It's been that way since hillary lost and refused to accept defeat. 

Making it up as you deem fit.

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Reword...

 

Actually, they certainly are A VERY serious problem if you are a rabid trump supporter,

They just set fire to the police union building in Portland. 

 

But hey, that is just a peaceful protest in your liberal world. 

 

Amazing to be so blind to reality. 

[riclag]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Yes the gov and the mayor are certainly left wing idiots. 

 

7 weeks of riots is not an acceptable solution to govern. 

 

These weak feckless progressive stooges are not willing to deal with the problem in any measurable way. So the adults will. 

 

I think these people who run city gov and allow felonies by their negligence should be a accessory to them In many instances .Its a  felony ,to destroy or deface federal property such as buildings and anything that attaches to it.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

They just set fire to the police union building in Portland. 

 

But hey, that is just a peaceful protest in your liberal world. 

 

Amazing to be so blind to reality. 

That ain’t federal property!

Sad! What is the cities plan !

Edited July 20, 2020 by riclag

[metisdead]

Another post using content from an unapproved YouTube source and a reply has been removed:

 

18) Social Media content is not to be used as  source material unless it is from a recognized or approved news media source,  the source of any such material (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube  etc.) should always be shown.

 

An off topic post not related to this topic and a reply has been removed. 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Logosone said:

Antifa are so minor that they are represented in virtually every country in the western world, USA, UK, Germany, France, Austria, Holland, Spain, Italy, Canada etc etc, so minor that their recent orgies of urban destruction spread through the entire USA and many parts of Europe.

 

Of course Antifa are a minority, however, there are enough of them to represent a very clear threat to the security of citizens, to their right to enjoy their cities in peace and quiet.

 

Or would you have liked to go shopping at Macy's when Antifa were trashing New York?

 

A very minor player with a huge violence potential.

 

Other than yourself, Trump and the Trump campaign talking point list, does any credible intelligence or law enforcement organization considers ANTIFA to be a danger remotely approaching the scale portrayed in many of the posts above?

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, checkered flag said:

What the FBI said was just initially, but wasn't backed up with much. Although right wing thugs undoubtedly exist, the real culprits are the far left groups that seem to be the darling of the democrats. Very sad when politicians rely on mob rule instead of debating facts. It's been that way since hillary lost and refused to accept defeat. 

 

So you claim the FBI's assessment wasn't "backed by much", without actually backing up that claim with anything whatsoever. Then again, your own claims regarding ANTIFA, BLM or the "far left" aren't "backed up by much" either, so no surprise. The mandatory HRC mention is dully noted.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

So what amount of destruction in a city is the amount that would require you to actually deal with reality? 

 

Just a number, 20 million? 50 million? 

 

How many businesses that are shuttered while this stupidity is allowed to continue will be enough for you to decide what is not trivial? What's the number? 

 

How many people need to be harassed or attacked before you can decide to think that is not a trivial matter to be shrugged off as a minor inconvenience? What's your number? 

 

Unbelievable man. 

 

 

Does 20 or even 50 million in  damages represent a danger to the USA itself? I mean, as in clear, present and all this? I would have thought that the USA's a bit more resilient than that, but eh.

 

While I appreciate the "concern" for the citizen's welfare, wouldn't these be exactly the people who voted for the city and state officials involved? That would imply they might be Democrats, progressives, liberals, leftists, far leftists, socialists, communists, marxist or even worse.