So, anyone here in Portland?

[hazard]

if they were were peaceful protests Hazard i would agree with you, but when they NIGHTLY turn into riots trying to burn a federal courthouse then they are not protests and should be treated as what they are riots. But i again point out that this is an old problem in Portland. maybe i need to dig up the videos to prove my point. i really dislike when you make me work for no real benefit as the lot of you will not believe it or turn a blind eye and make excuses.

Ah, nightly, but not constantly?

That sounds to me like the protesters do act as a general restraint on the rioting. Most of them will go home when the day's over, I mean, why would you not? The government officials will go home too, and scary things happen at night.


And even if the riots happen nightly, how the federal government is dealing with the riots is not how you deal with riots. In fact, 'unidentifiable officers and vehicles' is generally how you don't handle law enforcement in the first place, because at best it works counter productively.

Matrix, i love when there are peaceful exchanges of power, but i dislike when people do not bother to attempt to actually discuss points i have raised and go straight for the ad-hominem attacks. I find it fuckin hilarious that you think the leftist fringe that is pulling Biden's strings are the "Rational people" quite frankly the only person that was on the Democratic debate stage that was even more left of Biden WAS Bernie who IS a communist. (or maybe i should not malign those who decide to live in communes and give him the proper label of a MARXIST/STALINIST SOCIAIST but it is easier to call him a communist as people rightly label communists with the soviets)

Rajvik, Bernie is barely center-left. Here in Europe he'd be part of a centrist party. It's just the USA that's so far right they don't get that.

[robkelk]

if they were were peaceful protests Hazard i would agree with you, but when they NIGHTLY turn into riots trying to burn a federal courthouse then they are not protests and should be treated as what they are riots. But i again point out that this is an old problem in Portland. maybe i need to dig up the videos to prove my point. i really dislike when you make me work for no real benefit as the lot of you will not believe it or turn a blind eye and make excuses.

I would appreciate that, because nothing that you've said here has been reported in the news on this side of the border.

[GethN7]

if they were were peaceful protests Hazard i would agree with you, but when they NIGHTLY turn into riots trying to burn a federal courthouse then they are not protests and should be treated as what they are riots. But i again point out that this is an old problem in Portland. maybe i need to dig up the videos to prove my point. i really dislike when you make me work for no real benefit as the lot of you will not believe it or turn a blind eye and make excuses.

I would appreciate that, because nothing that you've said here has been reported in the news on this side of the border.

An unfortunate side-effect of most American news media being thinly-veiled propaganda pushers who have carried water for the rioters and attempted to whitewash them at every opportunity. Try hunting down livestreams of what's been going on social media not under MSM control, and you get to see a far uglier picture.

And is the crux of the problem. There is a signal to noise imbalance of riots outweighing protest, but the media, many of which have political axes to grind and are not trying very hard to hide it, have been trying to pull what Leslie Nielsen did in The Naked Gun movies and pretending everything is fine when things are burning down in the background.

Now, I want to come out and say I support the right of PEACABLE protest, COVID or not. If you want to risk yourself to protest, go for it as far as I'm concerned if it's that important to make yourself heard. However, these are the things I've seen (and this is just a few examples) on the non-cooked and slanted media that really horrified me.

1. People in places like that brief commune in Seattle actually killed each other with even less regard for the due process than cops. They even tried to destroy evidence.
2. Portland courthouse has been subjected to multiple arson attempts and people trying to rip down fences with power tools set up to protect the buildings from rioters. Like them or not, federal buildings are the domain of the federal government, and their agents have every right and duty to protect them, and when people are throwing firebombs and using power tools to destroy barriers meant to protect said buildings, your excuse of being protestors runs out and you are just straight up committing terrorism.
3. A lot of people are whining and crying about federal overreach and how police are brutalizing people. If you take a look at the non-propaganda, it's quite the reverse. Police and federal agents are showing absurd amounts of restraint while the criminals trying to hurt them are doing their best to goad the cops and federal people into hitting them with live rounds. The terrorists want martyrs, and the reason while tons of dead bodies are not stacked in the streets by cops and federal agents is because it's obvious the people trying to goad them to want the bloodshed to justify what they are doing. They are getting denied the satisfaction, and that's why, when you see the non-censored footage, my sympathy lies with the cops and feds, not the people begging for their own murder to play the martyr.
4. Let's drop the gauntlet on the table: The riots would have been stopped much sooner had they not had political support from certain people in power to keep going so they could use the civil disorder to win political advantage. Now, if you divorce yourself from any political bias for anyone and ask yourself who wants the riots to stop and who has been egging them on, the answer is pretty clear who stands to profit from continued civil disorder.

[Jinx999]

Your conspiracy theory is not big enough. Every souce is saying the same thing. It's ALL the news organisations in the world. And a LOT of police forces talking about the best way to handle riots. They must ALL be working together.

When every professional source, irrespective of their political leanings, from the Telegraph (To the right of the Conservative party) to the Guardian (Noticably Leftwing) are saying the same thing, I'm inclined to trust them far more than random dudes on social media.

[Dartz]

The problem with 'peaceful' protest is that those being protested against get to define 'peaceful'. To the point where 'peaceful' is a synonym for utterly inneffectual and completely ignorable.

[GethN7]

Your conspiracy theory is not big enough. Every souce is saying the same thing. It's ALL the news organisations in the world. And a LOT of police forces talking about the best way to handle riots. They must ALL be working together.

When every professional source, irrespective of their political leanings, from the Telegraph (To the right of the Conservative party) to the Guardian (Noticably Leftwing) are saying the same thing, I'm inclined to trust them far more than random dudes on social media.

Not even a conspiracy theory. Even the phalanx of official sources haven't been able to cover up that cities have been set on fire, statues and buildings have been desecrated, and people have called for the death of police and the abolishment of their existence, a demand that is basically asking civil society to stick a gun to its head and pull the trigger.

I'm all for the reformation of the police, justice blind to all parties, and equal rights as guaranteed by law.

My sympathy stops when you burn down cities, destroy works of art, and call for all law enforcement to be abolished and murdered just because of a few bad apples.

Not saying I still don't want police reform, blind justice, and equal rights, but that cannot be achieved on the suicide of society and the ashes of the cities that include the homes and businesses of it's citizens.

[robkelk]

The problem with 'peaceful' protest is that those being protested against get to define 'peaceful'. To the point where 'peaceful' is a synonym for utterly inneffectual and completely ignorable.

For example, Greenham Common. How many people remember that that protest lasted for 19 years? How many people remember what is was about?

[Rajvik]

GethN7 again thank you, i had to step away or else i would have lost my temper in my response and done nothing but fed the flames.

dartz, Rob, sometimes you are going to lose, the fact that the protest lasted 19 years and from your tone held whatever happened up that long is a testament to the people being protested against not bringing in bigger guns to push through what they wanted to do.

Jinx999 When the media bias covers for what the city officials can't cover up you are not going to get anything close to the truth. If the city was being run by a RhINO republican you would see the news media lambasting the city council, the police, and the mayor as weaklings in the face of some violent extremist protestors. But the current admin in that city, and in Seattle, and Minneapolis, are all fellow travelers of the liberal path, thus they cannot call them out lest they put their own agenda in danger, thus the narrative becomes "Peaceful Protests fired upon by Federal law enforcement"

[robkelk]

dartz, Rob, sometimes you are going to lose, the fact that the protest lasted 19 years and from your tone held whatever happened up that long is a testament to the people being protested against not bringing in bigger guns to push through what they wanted to do.

No, the protesters failed at what they intended to do. As far as I know, the nuclear weapons were never removed from the army base that they were picketing

(Hence my question "How many people remember what is was about?")

Jinx999 When the media bias covers for what the city officials can't cover up you are not going to get anything close to the truth. If the city was being run by a RhINO republican you would see the news media lambasting the city council, the police, and the mayor as weaklings in the face of some violent extremist protestors. But the current admin in that city, and in Seattle, and Minneapolis, are all fellow travelers of the liberal path, thus they cannot call them out lest they put their own agenda in danger, thus the narrative becomes "Peaceful Protests fired upon by Federal law enforcement"

Well, there's the thing:

So... where were these guys when a bunch of protesters toting actual semiautomatic weapons stormed federal buildings in April? Liberate Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia, but fuck Oregon, amirite?

This isn't happening in cities "being run by a RhINO republican ", to use your words. There's a double standard in play here.

[classicdrogn]

Good gods, Raj, at least google the thing before you dismiss its relevance. The Greenham protest achieved its primary goal (removing a stockpile of nuclear missiles from the local military base) in 1991, then kept on for nine more years to further general nuclear disarmament. This isn't a "sometimes you lose" thing, they won. Hell, having gone almost the entire time (there were a couple of incidents at the beginning and a few months in IIRC, having only gone through it quickly myself just now) as an inarguably peaceful protest, it's as much argument for your side in that respect, even if it's not on everyone's tongues now. I don't remember things that quietly went right in my personal life from twenty years ago either let alone thirty, you know what I remember? Fuckups and disasters, and sometimes barely turning one in my favor by dumb luck. That's the kind of mark on history we don't need to make more of.

[robkelk]

And once again I was wrong.

Thank you, CD.

[classicdrogn]

And once again I was wrong.

Well, to a degree. The protesters got what they wanted, but (again from reading the article once earlier) it did take ten years and wasn't exactly a clear cut "You know what? Fine, we're taking our nuclear football and going home." There also (thankfully) wasn't a nuclear war in that time, while police brutality is an ongoing and escalating problem right now.

Further, the violent incidents that did happen, occurred when the authorities tried to clear the protesters out, which I realized after rereading my post just now was a connection I didn't explicitly draw.

[Rajvik]

Drogn, i didn't google the protest because the tone that rob commented on it with was that the protesters didn't get their way, i made a bad assumption so i appologise. That said, it shows that peaceful protest can work. More was accomplished by Doctor King than ever was by Malcom X, why, because he was peaceful and thusly was able to get people to talk and negotiate.

Now both of you, your "Armed Protesters" in Virgiinia, Michigan and Minnesota DDN'T START A FUCKING RIOT!. those are all OPEN CARRY STATES, and because of that and the law in at least one of them that states that on a particular day of the month, (I believe it is the first monday of the month but i could be wrong) they brought their grievences to the state house as the law allowed. Apples and oranges Tob, your damn right there is a double standard. Media is all hyped about people going out and protesting the police, but god forbid a group goes out and demands their businesses be allowed to open up, media bias shows EXACTLY what they want their narrative to say and how GUN TOTING REPUBLICANS ARE EBIL but the people protesting the government and trying to BURN DOWN A FUCKING FEDERAL COURTHOUSE are all sunshine and love

[classicdrogn]

I'm not remotely saying that private gun ownership is wrong. Trump's bullshit is getting worryingly close to why I think private gun ownership is neccessary. I'm also not saying that the protesters throwing molotovs are in the right, because obviously not. I am saying that unidentified camo cosplaying goon squads committing violence in the streets and now abducting people without so much as flashing a badge are the bad guys regardless of which side of the picket line they're on.

[GethN7]

I'm not remotely saying that private gun ownership is wrong. Trump's bullshit is getting worryingly close to why I think private gun ownership is neccessary. I'm also not saying that the protesters throwing molotovs are in the right, because obviously not. I am saying that unidentified camo cosplaying goon squads committing violence in the streets and now abducting people without so much as flashing a badge are the bad guys regardless of which side of the picket line they're on.

I'll side with you on that one.

The fact we've gotten to the point that you can be picked up by federal agents who do not have to directly identify themselves (their names being concealed I'll give them, there are confirmed reports of these people getting doxed and harassed because of this, they instead wear ID tags to prevent this), at least not by flashing a legitimate badge and reading Miranda rights and can instead forego most of that and just detain you is a worrying precedent. Even though this is a time of civil unrest, that's when the rule of law should have even stronger enforcement, especially in regards to the proper process, not less so.

If nothing else, this prevents any hint of ambiguity any of their actions were legally justified, no matter what the scope of their jurisdiction may be.

[hazard]

The fact that this is a time of civil unrest where the reason for the unrest is abuse of police authority is even more reason for politicians to demand the enforcement of the rule of law on the government.

That such demands do not come from the party in power, which so often runs on a platform of 'the government needs to be limited as much as possible' is worrisome. Very worrisome.

[GethN7]

I tend to lean culturally conservative but am otherwise pretty classically liberal, and I hang around communities that in different spheres of political alignment where I can usually find some sort of common ground, and ironically, even in the spheres I hang out where Trump, Republicans, and hard right views are typically championed, even they are getting a bit disturbed by how casually the process of the rule of law is being glossed over by those same entities they usually support. Even some pretty dedicated Trump supporters I know are starting to get concerned that even if Trump is letting federal agencies stretch the limits of their powers without actually breaking them to clamp down on civil unrest, they find it troubling the precedent that could set.

For the record, I tend to agree. While Abe Lincoln did suspend habeus corpus and perform other chilling acts as part of his war powers in the American Civil War, even he otherwise had reservations about going whole hog with doing so, and even was in favor of letting normal elections and other parts of due process proceed as normally as possible when and where there was no excuse not to do so. He was also a lawyer by training and he was petrified of setting a terrible precedent that could erode the concept of due process then or in the future.

If you ask me, assuming Trump is acting with the best of motives, it would be best for him to encourage those federal agents who have been detaining people to go out of their way to observe due process even more stringently than in a time of relative civil peace, because even a lot of hard right types rightly fear that casual abuse of extraordinary situations could mutate into a degradation of civil rights in regards to safeguards of our civil freedom down the road. The fact we aren't seeing that is something I believe anyone with a respect for the idea all are entitled to due process can agree could be a very slippery slope once this madness has passed.

[hazard]

Not once the madness has passed. It's always a slippery slope, and the current madness dismantling the system of due process is simply more brazen an attempt. Unless those responsible for the dismantling are ousted from power and replaced the madness will not pass. Preferably they will also be punished for the harm they've done.

The USA has always not been nearly as democratic as it likes to espouse, but during and following the demand for and extension of the civil rights the privileged classes held to those not privileged it seemed to be on the right track towards becoming what it has always promised to be.

Trump and the people that facilitate his behaviour and policies are simply an indication that as much as things have changed and improved, across much of the USA it hasn't. Worse, those who do not desire improvement are willing and eager to use violence to ensure things remain static even as the public rightly demands better. I would not be too surprised if what we will see for the next decade or so is 'Civil Rights Era USA part 2', with protests, marches, violence and murders in the streets and at least some of that perpetrated by the government.

The most worrisome bit of it however is that during the 1960's the national government if not eager to support the causes of the protesters found it hard to say that the causes themselves were wrong, but right now the national government is eager to suppress the unrest by violent means no matter the cost to the public. Because I've not heard anything from the Republican leadership or the White House about peaceful overtures to the protesters or initiatives to address the very real problems the protests seek to be addressed. Not even the most milquetoast and uncommitted statements about how the policing doctrine might need some revision.


Oh, and regarding Portland?



Turns out, judges have an opinion on state actors harming journalists exercising the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

[classicdrogn]

Turns out, judges have an opinion on state actors harming journalists exercising the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Here's the fixed video:

non-embedded

It's a start, though I'll be shocked if the trumpists don't try to get it overturned.

[hazard]

Well, right now it's just a temporary restraining order lasting only 14 days, so no need to try and get it overturned. Just try and outlast it.

If it gets turned into something permanent though... I'm not sure they'll be able to overturn it before the new year.

[nocarename]

That would require restraint on the part of the Federal forces though and there hasn't been a great history of that in this situation.

I'd expect ignoring it followed by trying to get any consequences overturned, based on the behaviour I've seen reported.