25 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I assume Mods will permit as they have not removed your comments.

 

Just curious why you are so spiteful, it does come across as a trait from those from the Right under trump.. Just as a heads up on the Major of Portland who quite possibly has achieved a great deal more in his life than you as has the Governor...

 

He received a bachelor's degree in economics from Stanford University in 1985. He also earned an MBA from Columbia University and a master's in public policy from Harvard University.^[9] Wheeler worked for several financial services companies, including the Bank of America and Copper Mountain Trust.^[1]

 

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

 

Your words "U need to understand the difference between state and federal. The feds can do what the f they want in America"

 

is this claim correct? Federal agency actions at State level are subject to the Rule Of Law and legal processes, all the way to the Supreme Court. if not the US government would be a dictatorship.

 

I'm also curious, at what point and after how much damage and injuries in Portland would the Gov ask the feds for assistance. It would seem to me the gov is lacking in her mental capacity if she thinks what has been happening in Portland for 2 months is OK.

30 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm also curious, at what point and after how much damage and injuries in Portland would the Gov ask the feds for assistance. It would seem to me the gov is lacking in her mental capacity if she thinks what has been happening in Portland for 2 months is OK.

Deflection to my question. However, one assumes there were many nuances to the local authorities decisions, which neiith you or I are aware of. Some of the decision making led to further criminal behaviour and decisions were reversed. My understanding the feds were to protect a federal building and for local law enforcement to deal with local matters. Unfortunate, as does occur from time to time, Fed enforcement has also made critical errors of judgement. e.g. a federal officer shot an unarmed protester in the head who is now in a critical condition in hospital. No one is blameless.

Edited July 19, 20205 yr by simple1

Unidentified men taking people off the streets into unmarked vans.

 

They could be anyone, vigilantes, Im surprised no one has started shooting them.

All the City's where this protesting and destruction of property is happening are Democrat run Trump is wrong he should let them burn them to the ground if they want to because when he tries to stop it he is then the villein he should sit back and let it happen  

7 minutes ago, norfolkc said:

All the City's where this protesting and destruction of property is happening are Democrat run Trump is wrong he should let them burn them to the ground if they want to because when he tries to stop it he is then the villein he should sit back and let it happen  

In Portland demonstrations were on the decline. Federal intervention has actually re-energized them. So, yes, withdrawing Federal forces would be a good idea. Though for exactly the opposite reason that you propose.

Edited July 19, 20205 yr by cantata

24 minutes ago, norfolkc said:

All the City's where this protesting and destruction of property is happening are Democrat run Trump is wrong he should let them burn them to the ground if they want to because when he tries to stop it he is then the villein he should sit back and let it happen  

Exactly. I can't believe the media has not noticed this. All the violence and chaos is in democrat run states. Well, the media might not have noticed, but I'm pretty sure Joe Public has. In November they have a clear choice of voting for anarchy under the dems, or law and order under Trump. Never mind the pink rinse frumps and tattooed love puppies in black, it is an easy choice for normal, balanced voters. 

Just now, norfolkc said:

All the City's where this protesting and destruction of property is happening are Democrat run Trump is wrong he should let them burn them to the ground if they want to because when he tries to stop it he is then the villein he should sit back and let it happen 

Miss this weekends news about Trump giving up on the pandemic, eh?! He considers the pandemic a "distraction".  As such you need another story, a new narrative. Starting from his July 4th speeches he created one. Now he is sending troops into Stumptown. Yawn.

FOX News Internet site for a good 10 days has buried the the wuhan surge, in Elvis country, with Antifa, Stumptown bunnies, basically anything they can ratchet up to ignore VIRUS. Tough work too as Tucker had to go AWOL, writer found to be outright racist bigot, oh my. (This is news?)

 

All to ignore or bury news about the ongoing pandemic. Thirty years ago my dad would say "Portland it's a disease" and he has a brother that lives there. Relax no one cares about Stumptown least of all Oregonians. 

Edited July 19, 20205 yr by LomSak27

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Deflection to my question. However, one assumes there were many nuances to the local authorities decisions, which neiith you or I are aware of. Some of the decision making led to further criminal behaviour and decisions were reversed. My understanding the feds were to protect a federal building and for local law enforcement to deal with local matters. Unfortunate, as does occur from time to time, Fed enforcement has also made critical errors of judgement. e.g. a federal officer shot an unarmed protester in the head who is now in a critical condition in hospital. No one is blameless.

Perhaps they should post signs "Anarchy can be dangerous to your health"  The road we choose in life has consequences. 

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

I think you're wrong, but let's wait and see.

The main thing here is that, again, Trump is testing how far he can go. I always thought jingthing was overdoing it with his dictator accusations, but more and more it looks like he could be proven correct. And again the GOP is awfully quiet on one of their own issues, separate powers of state and feds.

Trump is not "testing how far he can go", he knows exactly how far he can go.

 

The law is very clear that he is allowed to send federal troops.

 

Moreover there is a very clear precedent. Eisenhower did exactly the same at Little Rock in 1957.

 

How is this different? Federal troops were sent in then to enforce US law. Yet nobody in their right mind would accuse Eisenhower of having been a dictator.

 

The separation of power of state and federal state very obviously is not an absolute rule which is never set aside.

 

See the case of Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 4, 18–19 (1958)where someone tried to challenge Eisenhower's authority to send federal troops to Little Rock. The challenge failed.

 

Again, the law is very clear, these are the relevant provisions of the United States Code:

 

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both . . . shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law . . . .”

 

This is NOT an objective test, it is very clear that this is at the president's discretion. This was made clear in Martin v. Mott, the Court held that the authority to decide whether the exigency had arisen belonged exclusively to the President.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/the-president-as-law-enforcer

 

This is in now way a dictatorship. Trump is on extremely clear legal authority. US law clearly gives him the right to send federal troops.

Edited July 19, 20205 yr by Logosone

36 minutes ago, LomSak27 said:

All to ignore or bury news about the ongoing pandemic.

Also the Putin love affair, including the bounty paid for killing US military personnel.  Can all these flag wavers declaring rabid patriotism let this be "but but"-ed away?

DT has been uncharacteristically quiet on the subject all along.  Why isn't he out there crowing about how wrong it would be?  He'd rather talk about walking down a ramp.

Portland is NOT a town known for monuments and statues, this is more reality show hogwash.  I also suspect elements on the the DT side of things are the ones fomenting the violence.

 

Only seven Oregon counties went blue in 2016.  Scary, but the state went blue.  There was a "Turn Oregon Red" movement afterwards.  Also some silliness about certain counties in southern and eastern Oregon becoming part of Idaho.  For years some people in the populated part of the state have taken to calling the eastern part of the state Western Idaho.

 

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/

 

 

Edited July 19, 20205 yr by bendejo

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Trump is not "testing how far he can go", he knows exactly how far he can go.

<snip>

Disagree, he is doing that on a regular basis, including here.

33 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Perhaps they should post signs "Anarchy can be dangerous to your health"  The road we choose in life has consequences. 

what didn't you understand about shooting an unarmed protester. It seems to me for those to the 'right', rule of law is increasingly irrelevant - think you're immune - don't forget - unless you go down the exact same path of cruelty dictatorships feed on their own.

Edited July 19, 20205 yr by simple1

Oregon man's lawsuit aims to hold nebulous 'antifa' to blame for injuries

 

This will be fun to watch.

 

 

33 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Disagree, he is doing that on a regular basis, including here.

So Eisenhower can send federal troops to Little Rock, but Trump can't send them to Portland?

 

How does this even remotely make sense?

23 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Oregon man's lawsuit aims to hold nebulous 'antifa' to blame for injuries

 

This will be fun to watch.

 

 

My God what a horrific violence perpetrated by Antifa on this poor man.

 

Hopefully he wins his case and those responsible have to pay the consequences of their violent leftist extremism.

34 minutes ago, simple1 said:

what didn't you understand about shooting an unarmed protester. It seems to me for those to the 'right', rule of law is increasingly irrelevant - think you're immune - don't forget - unless you go down the exact same path of cruelty dictatorships feed on their own.

It was a less than lethal impact round. The officers saw the guy throwing a canister back at officers. The guy wasn't seriously injured as first reported by major.

 

 

12 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

Every single one in the video have police patches and department shoulder patches, don’t even try to deny it. It’s all over the internet. 

Have you now done your followup, noting the Governor of Oregon and the US Attorney General calling for an investigation? The Donald is using extralegal means to use "overwhelming" federal force as he is not satisfied with civil authorities (Mayor, Governor) action. The reason they are using unmarked renew vans is because these are forces whose traditional roles do not include rounding up protestors on American streets. Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

18 minutes ago, Logosone said:

So Eisenhower can send federal troops to Little Rock, but Trump can't send them to Portland?

 

How does this even remotely make sense?

Because circumstances are inherently unequal ...

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

I assume Mods will permit as they have not removed your comments.

 

Just curious why you are so spiteful, it does come across as a trait from those from the Right under trump.. Just as a heads up on the Major of Portland who quite possibly has achieved a great deal more in his life than you as has the Governor...

 

He received a bachelor's degree in economics from Stanford University in 1985. He also earned an MBA from Columbia University and a master's in public policy from Harvard University.^[9] Wheeler worked for several financial services companies, including the Bank of America and Copper Mountain Trust.^[1]

 

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

 

Your words "U need to understand the difference between state and federal. The feds can do what the f they want in America"

 

is this claim correct? Federal agency actions at State level are subject to the Rule Of Law and legal processes, all the way to the Supreme Court. if not the US government would be a dictatorship.

 

Agree. some need to understand the US Constitution:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Unidentified men taking people off the streets into unmarked vans.

Plainclothes police arresting and detaining domestic terrorists. 

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm also curious, at what point and after how much damage and injuries in Portland would the Gov ask the feds for assistance. It would seem to me the gov is lacking in her mental capacity if she thinks what has been happening in Portland for 2 months is OK.

The decision to ask for federal help is the Governor's. Not The Donald or our decision to make. I would have thought you would have supported the rule of law ... supposed to cover all, including POTUS (confirmed once again recently by SCOTUS).

14 hours ago, Logosone said:

My God, they won't let him use the Washington police, they won't allow him using DHS....

 

How is he supposed to smash the ANTIFA monster without any soldiers on the ground?

 

How many cities will have to be destroyed by these leftist lunatics?

Rather than asking, why are the citizens rising up and what issue do we need to address?

42 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Because circumstances are inherently unequal ...

In Oregon US laws were not enforced, in Little Rock US laws were not enforced.

 

The circumstances are inherently similar.

 

Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock to enforces US laws.

 

Trump sent federal troops to Portland to enforce US laws.

Edited July 19, 20205 yr by Logosone

9 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Rather than asking, why are the citizens rising up and what issue do we need to address?

The "citizens" are not rising up. A small but very violent leftist minority is engaging in widespread destruction for party and ideological reasons.

 

They enjoy the violence, street protest is like a street party to them. They have no respect for the state, for private property because they despise the state.

 

This is the issue we need to address. The violence perpetrated by some people who think it's okay to beat people up until they have brain damage.

 

That is the issue.

 

You are making excuses for violent thugs who wish to destroy society and replace it with a leftist fantasy land.

27 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Agree. some need to understand the US Constitution:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Some people need to understand US law:

 

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

 

“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both . . . shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law . . . .”

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/the-president-as-law-enforcer

 

 

That is in the United States Code.

 

In Martin v. Mott, the Court held that the authority to decide whether the exigency had arisen belonged exclusively to the President. 

 

No need at all for a request by the Governor of Oregon.

Edited July 19, 20205 yr by Logosone

50 minutes ago, bendejo said:

1 hour ago, LomSak27 said:

All to ignore or bury news about the ongoing pandemic.

Also the Putin love affair, including the bounty paid for killing US military personnel.  Can all these flag wavers declaring rabid patriotism let this be "but but"-ed away?

 

Distract with Stump Bunnies, then Block Billions for Coronavirus Testing & aid From Republican Relief Bill.    Woohoo! Lot of flag wavers down in Elvis country are not going to make it, luckily this is not a problem for them. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/18/white-house-seeks-to-block-funds-for-testing-in-coronavirus-relief-bill-report.html

‘Anarchists’ provoke tear gas use during Portland protests, police tell Oregon lawmakers

 

High-ranking Portland police officials told state lawmakers they’ve tried to de-escalate violence at nightly downtown protests but a small group of anarchists intentionally try to injure officers and require them to use tear gas and other munitions that affect entire crowds.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/anarchists-provoke-tear-gas-use-during-portland-protests-police-tell-oregon-lawmakers.html

25 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Some people need to understand US law:

 

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

 

“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both . . . shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law . . . .”

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/the-president-as-law-enforcer

 

 

That is in the United States Code.

 

In Martin v. Mott, the Court held that the authority to decide whether the exigency had arisen belonged exclusively to the President. 

 

No need at all for a request by the Governor of Oregon.

There is no Governor of Portland. Your reading gives sole authority to the President of the US. The US Attorney in Oregon has called for an investigation. The precedent and recent ruling by SCOTUS has determined no POTUS is above the law. Sorry, I cannot find your profile information listed. Are you a Constitutional Law Professor like President Obama? So, it is off to court and an election to see if the citizens, rising up across the country, agree with your opinion. Needless to say, I disagree with your interpretation.

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Funny how fast our lefty non-brothers locate and interpret the 4th amendment 100% literally when a lunatic antifa member gets detained (never mind it’s completely in line with laws as we know them today) yet show them the second amendment and watch them hyperventilate at the thought and cry for the feds to go after “right wingers”. 

A post has been removed:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.