I wonder what fraction of Americans would recognize the Stars and Bars as a Confederate symbol these days; the Battle Flag seems a lot more widely used.
Not a large percentage, I don’t think.
That said, the fact that the design was inspired by the Stars and Bars was part of the discussion leading up to the 2004 referendum on the new flag. In 2001, the Georgia legislature had replaced 1956 flag by a horror of vexillographic design. The reaction to the 2001 flag was so negative that the new design was adopted in 2003, with the choice of it or the 2001 design being put to the voters in April 2004. The 2003 design apparently was acceptable to enough people—it got around 75% of the vote—because the Stars and Bars, while still being a Confederate flag, is viewed more in historical terms and lacks much of the contemporary connotations of the battle flag.
This may be a tangent. It is reported in the British media that somein the U.S. are claiming that to require them to wear face-masks violates their constitutioal rights. Can ant knowledgable Stateside shipmate explain on what basis that can be argued?
This may be a tangent. It is reported in the British media that somein the U.S. are claiming that to require them to wear face-masks violates their constitutioal rights. Can ant knowledgable Stateside shipmate explain on what basis that can be argued?
Not stateside myself but freedom of speech/expression. I would guess that the courts would find that the right was infringed by a mask requirement but that the restriction passed the strict scrutiny test, but the court is unlikely to dismiss such a case out of hand.
But you can still speak wearing a mask. I've done it myself.
No, but what you wear can be a form of expression.
Indeed. This guy is sending a pretty clear message with his choice of garments, for example. That being said, it's long been considered constitutional for local governments to regulate dress in certain ways. For example, laws requiring people to cover their genitals with clothing while in public are constitutional. Speech which endangers the public (such as the oft-cited 'shouting "fire" in a crowded theater') is also not protected by the First Amendment, and deliberately spreading a pandemic disease would seem to qualify as endangering the public.
Some will probably also cite the First Amendment's guarantee of peaceable assembly, insofar as mask requirements place a restriction on gathering in public places. This is also not an absolute right, as curfews are considered constitutional, as are evacuation orders in disaster situations.
What it comes down to is that American conservatives, especially white American conservatives, consider being required to do anything which helps anyone else to be an infringement of their right to be a selfish asshole.
But you can still speak wearing a mask. I've done it myself.
No, but what you wear can be a form of expression.
Indeed. This guy is sending a pretty clear message with his choice of garments, for example. That being said, it's long been considered constitutional for local governments to regulate dress in certain ways.
Indeed. In fact, because of the pandemic, the legislature where I live recently repealed the law that made it a misdemeanor to wear a mask in public—that law having originally been enacted because of the example to which @Crœsos linked.
What it comes down to is that American conservatives, especially white American conservatives, consider being required to do anything which helps anyone else to be an infringement of their right to be a selfish asshole.
Not sure whether this is a tangent or not. It's certainly Trump related
I've been picking up stories over here (UK) of what sound like a series of acts of appalling random thuggery on casual members of the public by some sort of special federal security police force acting on the President's orders in Portland, Oregon.
Do any shipmates nearer at hand,
- know anything about this?
- can say whether the description 'a series of acts of appalling random thuggery on casual members of the public by some sort of special federal security police force acting on the President's orders' is fair or unfair?
- can say what the underlying story is really about?
The versions I've read refer to demonstrations, but:-
a. give the impression that, if there are demonstrations, they aren't very large ones,
b. strongly imply that the victims of the thuggery seem to be set upon at random and aren't necessarily the actual demonstrators. The stories therefore read as though the special security police force is running amok, and, perhaps most significant,
c. give no explanation of what the demonstrations are about, what it was that might have provoked such violent government action.
Portland Oregon is a long way from here, and not a place most of us know much about. Looking it up in Wikipedia, it doesn't look like the sort of place where one would expect to encounter riots or civil tumult.
Alternatively, is this something that hasn't been happening, some sort of fake news?
Portland Oregon is a long way from here, and not a place most of us know much about. Looking it up in Wikipedia, it doesn't look like the sort of place where one would expect to encounter riots or civil tumult.
Alternatively, is this something that hasn't been happening, some sort of fake news?
It's real enough to have been covered by both the nytimes and wapo.
Yes, it's really scary. Some additional factors: A lot of folks on the west coast aren't especially fond of (Washington,) DC interfering with anything out here. There've been various levels of independence and regional autonomy movements for a long time. I wouldn't think that most involved would get violent about it. (Then again, the Malheur standoff...)
Thank you for the various links. There still, though, doesn't seem to be any explanation of what the protests themselves are about, or any suggestion that they have somehow got sufficiently out of hand that they needed such heavy handed federal enforcement.
Unless I'm missing something that's obvious, there's no obvious suggestion in those links that there's a dangerous secessionist movement in Oregon or that the local state administration's approach is because they'd like to emulate the Catalans.
At the moment, I'm reading this as sinister and yet another very dirty stain on the President's little hands. Is that unfair?
I very much think someone should look deeply into who the violent protestors are, because they might be other than BLM supporters. Some of the violence elsewhere was reportedly caused by outside agitators.
T hates Democrat-friendly places, and Portland may be one. He's threatened sanctuary cities, liberal places (SF and California, etc.), and he's not exactly a friend of POC. He's been threatening to send in people to retake various cities. Sending in violent "protestors" gives reason to do that.
And why in the world are the agents from Customs & Border Patrol??? I haven't heard anything about the people they captured being undocumented.
...
And why in the world are the agents from Customs & Border Patrol??? I haven't heard anything about the people they captured being undocumented.
The border with Canada is closed to all but essential traffic, so they have been redeployed. Politically and legally, it's probably easier for Trump to use ICE, a strictly federal agency, as his brown shirts, rather than the national guard, which is sort of under both state and federal control.
ETA: AIUI, the various federal law enforcement agencies (ATF, DEA, etc.) can also temporarily (or permanently) work in each others'areas of responsibility.
(Oregon, like the other West Coast states, broadly speaking, has a metropolitan progressive coastline and a rural conservative interior.)
In Portland, federal agents have acted against the expressed opposition of the local authorities.
But officials in Washington said they had clear authority. Customs and Border Protection, which sent tactical border agents to Portland, cited 40 U.S. Code 1315, which under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the department’s secretary the power to deputize other federal agents to assist the Federal Protective Service in protecting federal property, such as the courthouse in Portland.
Those agents can carry firearms, arrest those accused of committing a crime without a warrant and conduct investigations “on and off the property in question.”
“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,” said Garrett Graff, a historian who studies the Department of Homeland Security’s history and development.
First, apart from calling the protestors "violent anarchists", is there any evidence the protestors actually are either anarchists or particularly violent? Are the forces of Laura Norder entitled to do what they like so long as they call the demonstrators an appropriately threatening sounding name?
Second, by the standards of demos here, 150-250 demonstrators is a pretty small demo. Even 4-500 isn't that big. Estimates as to numbers vary, but when Greta Thunberg came to the city where I live shortly before Covid somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 people, many of them children, turned out to support her. That's a proper sized demo. There was no disorder.
Or is it, which I've commented on before on these boards, that demos automatically have to be taken much more seriously in a country where anyone can go into a shop and buy heavy duty weaponry? There must be a problem with policing public order if any protestor might have a submachine gun concealed in their rucksack. With that potential, I can see that you can't really talk about any sort of right of 'peaceful protest'.
The border with Canada is closed to all but essential traffic, so they have been redeployed.
If the border is closed, shouldn't the immigration people be fully occupied in stopping people from trying to cross it?
And are the sort of people whose normal jobs are to sit in booths, check peoples' passports, and examine their luggage for contraband really likely to be that well trained for heavy duty riot control - even if when they get there, it turns out there's no proper riot and they have to invent one?
Politically and legally, it's probably easier for Trump to use ICE, a strictly federal agency, as his brown shirts, rather than the national guard, which is sort of under both state and federal control.
ETA: AIUI, the various federal law enforcement agencies (ATF, DEA, etc.) can also temporarily (or permanently) work in each others'areas of responsibility.
(Oregon, like the other West Coast states, broadly speaking, has a metropolitan progressive coastline and a rural conservative interior.)
This may sound a bit thick, but do all these sets of initials, ICE, ETA, ATF, DEA stand for various things, or are they just there to make the organisations sound suitably heavy? What do they mean and what do they all do?
The border with Canada is closed to all but essential traffic, so they have been redeployed.
If the border is closed, shouldn't the immigration people be fully occupied in stopping people from trying to cross it?
And are the sort of people whose normal jobs are to sit in booths, check peoples' passports, and examine their luggage for contraband really likely to be that well trained for heavy duty riot control - even if when they get there, it turns out there's no proper riot and they have to invent one?
It should be noted that the U.S. coastline is considered to be "the border", not just land crossings. CPB considers its jurisdiction to be anywhere within 100 miles of "the border", which includes the borders with Canada and Mexico, all U.S. coastlines, and any airport that receives either international passengers or international cargo. By this definition ~75% of the U.S. population lives on "the border".
Politically and legally, it's probably easier for Trump to use ICE, a strictly federal agency, as his brown shirts, rather than the national guard, which is sort of under both state and federal control.
ETA: AIUI, the various federal law enforcement agencies (ATF, DEA, etc.) can also temporarily (or permanently) work in each others'areas of responsibility.
(Oregon, like the other West Coast states, broadly speaking, has a metropolitan progressive coastline and a rural conservative interior.)
This may sound a bit thick, but do all these sets of initials, ICE, ETA, ATF, DEA stand for various things, or are they just there to make the organisations sound suitably heavy? What do they mean and what do they all do?
ETA - Edited to Add (also the Employment & Training Administration)
AIUI - As I Understand It
ICE - Immigration & Customs Enforcement
ATF - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (now technically the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives but they haven't changed the acronym)
DEA - Drug Enforcement Agency
CPB - Customs & Border Protection (also the Corporation for Public Broadcasting)
And yes, they like the alphabet soup names in part because it makes them sound heavy. Also so they can act offended when you don't know what their acronym stands for.
I very much think someone should look deeply into who the violent protestors are, because they might be other than BLM supporters. Some of the violence elsewhere was reportedly caused by outside agitators.
T hates Democrat-friendly places, and Portland may be one. He's threatened sanctuary cities, liberal places (SF and California, etc.), and he's not exactly a friend of POC. He's been threatening to send in people to retake various cities. Sending in violent "protestors" gives reason to do that.
And why in the world are the agents from Customs & Border Patrol??? I haven't heard anything about the people they captured being undocumented.
GK thanks for that article and the question about the branch of law enforcement being used. My grave fear is that extremists are working within the protests to amp up the violence. They want, I fear, more unreasonable arrests, more egregious violence from the authorities. They want, like most really hardcore extremists, to convince others to martyr themselves for their cause, which is of course the cause of chaos.
The great problem is that the US Government is also led by extremists. I fear, as I'm sure we all do, that these extremists also want the violence to escalate. I fear that they want to convince their supporters (not ordinary Americans, just their supporters), that the time for decisive action is now. The more the Portland protesters damage property, by spray paint or throwing pebbles, or even better by smashing and burning stuff, the more that the White House extremists can convince their supporters that the survival of the America they know (which is a fictive America, as always), requires drastic and extreme action, not only against the protesters in Portland, but against anyone who supports the protest.
I have a great deal of faith in the institutional strength of the Federal Government and State Governments. If the White House extremists push things too far right now, I am confident they will fail. But I am not 100% confident and I fear for you (and me, for myself and my loved ones too). I fear the fight. If Trump has another four years to deal with malcontents in the Military, such a situation will be even more fragile.
Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on us for we sin.
This is one of those iconic moments that will be in memories and history books, and on posters and t-shirts. And the reporter, Richard Read, really got that, and expressed it very well.
Presumably, Trump's best hope of winning the election is to maintain a high level of chaos and fear. Of course, this can rebound back on him, as people tire of it. No doubt, there are further provocations to come from him, and I suppose he is getting desperate. The red scare isn't working very well, and the use of unmarked vans and police is another potential "hoist with his own petard". Maybe I'm missing something.
Presumably, Trump's best hope of winning the election is to maintain a high level of chaos and fear. Of course, this can rebound back on him, as people tire of it. No doubt, there are further provocations to come from him, and I suppose he is getting desperate. The red scare isn't working very well, and the use of unmarked vans and police is another potential "hoist with his own petard". Maybe I'm missing something.
Just Trump's tendency to double down whenever something doesn't work. There was a lot of blowback from using police to shoot and gas peaceful protesters at Lafayette Square so Trump could have his Bible photo op, so he decided to double down with secret police abductions in Portland, OR. Now that the secret police stuff seems to be angering more people than it's impressing I wonder what he's going to do to double down on that?
I suppose going nuclear would be a Reichstag fire equivalent, that is, paramilitaries posing as left extremists, doing something nasty. Would he go that far?
I suppose going nuclear would be a Reichstag fire equivalent, that is, paramilitaries posing as left extremists, doing something nasty. Would he go that far?
I would imagine there are many frightened residents of Portland, who want law and order to return to their city so they can venture out again without fear of being attacked by a rampaging mob, who hope he does go that far and soon.
You never know, it might become a Trump stronghold in November, once he has removed all the violent protestors!
Thatcheright, if I correctly understand you to mean that she might be very ugly, that's an awful thing to say. Perhaps a remedial manners and/or ethics course would amend that posting problem?
Is there any evidence (or truth) that the protestors are more violent than the uniformed people sent there to stop the violence?
Of course not. That would be pointless. If you are going in to stop violent protestors or fight a war against an aggressive enemy, you need to be more violent than the protestors or the enemy, or you will lose.
I would hope that the violence applied by the authorities is sufficient to get the job done, otherwise good people will be put at risk.
Thatcheright, if I correctly understand you to mean that she might be very ugly, that's an awful thing to say. Perhaps a remedial manners and/or ethics course would amend that posting problem?
But I have good manners! I said I would didn't I, which is the reaction I'm sure she was after. I bet she wouldn't have got her kit off to prance around if she didn't look like she does.
Do you really think most males on the planet who sees those images doesn't think about sex? She knew that before she started.
My guess is she will be reveal her identity on social media in a few days time before beginning a career as an "influencer", which I believe is some kind of job these days.
Is there any evidence (or truth) that the protestors are more violent than the uniformed people sent there to stop the violence?
Of course not. That would be pointless. If you are going in to stop violent protestors or fight a war against an aggressive enemy, you need to be more violent than the protestors or the enemy, or you will lose.
I would hope that the violence applied by the authorities is sufficient to get the job done, otherwise good people will be put at risk.
Is there any evidence (or truth) that the protestors are more violent than the uniformed people sent there to stop the violence?
Of course not. That would be pointless. If you are going in to stop violent protestors or fight a war against an aggressive enemy, you need to be more violent than the protestors or the enemy, or you will lose.
I would hope that the violence applied by the authorities is sufficient to get the job done, otherwise good people will be put at risk.
What level of violence do you think justifies unmarked vehicles with unidentified federal officers grabbing people at random off the street?
Is there any evidence (or truth) that the protestors are more violent than the uniformed people sent there to stop the violence?
Of course not. That would be pointless. If you are going in to stop violent protestors or fight a war against an aggressive enemy, you need to be more violent than the protestors or the enemy, or you will lose.
I would hope that the violence applied by the authorities is sufficient to get the job done, otherwise good people will be put at risk.
Is there any evidence (or truth) that the protestors are more violent than the uniformed people sent there to stop the violence?
Of course not. That would be pointless. If you are going in to stop violent protestors or fight a war against an aggressive enemy, you need to be more violent than the protestors or the enemy, or you will lose.
I would hope that the violence applied by the authorities is sufficient to get the job done, otherwise good people will be put at risk.
What level of violence do you think justifies unmarked vehicles with unidentified federal officers grabbing people at random off the street?
They weren't random. They were on the streets in an area where rioting is taking place.
If they weren't on the streets they couldn't have been arrested.
Anyway, she might be a double bagger under her mask, where I have to wear one in case hers falls off.
Host hat on
This tasteless and sexist tangent is contributing nothing to serious discussion about Trump’s presidency. Do not continue it. Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
Is there any evidence (or truth) that the protestors are more violent than the uniformed people sent there to stop the violence?
Of course not. That would be pointless. If you are going in to stop violent protestors or fight a war against an aggressive enemy, you need to be more violent than the protestors or the enemy, or you will lose.
I would hope that the violence applied by the authorities is sufficient to get the job done, otherwise good people will be put at risk.
What level of violence do you think justifies unmarked vehicles with unidentified federal officers grabbing people at random off the street?
They weren't random. They were on the streets in an area where rioting is taking place.
If they weren't on the streets they couldn't have been arrested.
Walking the streets of a free country is not a crime, nor is it violence. Neither is taking part in a protest. Are you really saying it's ok to kidnap people for being near part of a city where other people may or may not have been committing a crime?
Comments
That said, the fact that the design was inspired by the Stars and Bars was part of the discussion leading up to the 2004 referendum on the new flag. In 2001, the Georgia legislature had replaced 1956 flag by a horror of vexillographic design. The reaction to the 2001 flag was so negative that the new design was adopted in 2003, with the choice of it or the 2001 design being put to the voters in April 2004. The 2003 design apparently was acceptable to enough people—it got around 75% of the vote—because the Stars and Bars, while still being a Confederate flag, is viewed more in historical terms and lacks much of the contemporary connotations of the battle flag.
I might even be tempted to watch the whole thing.
Not stateside myself but freedom of speech/expression. I would guess that the courts would find that the right was infringed by a mask requirement but that the restriction passed the strict scrutiny test, but the court is unlikely to dismiss such a case out of hand.
No, but what you wear can be a form of expression.
Indeed. This guy is sending a pretty clear message with his choice of garments, for example. That being said, it's long been considered constitutional for local governments to regulate dress in certain ways. For example, laws requiring people to cover their genitals with clothing while in public are constitutional. Speech which endangers the public (such as the oft-cited 'shouting "fire" in a crowded theater') is also not protected by the First Amendment, and deliberately spreading a pandemic disease would seem to qualify as endangering the public.
Some will probably also cite the First Amendment's guarantee of peaceable assembly, insofar as mask requirements place a restriction on gathering in public places. This is also not an absolute right, as curfews are considered constitutional, as are evacuation orders in disaster situations.
What it comes down to is that American conservatives, especially white American conservatives, consider being required to do anything which helps anyone else to be an infringement of their right to be a selfish asshole.
Yes, certainly.
Every single one of us.
I've been picking up stories over here (UK) of what sound like a series of acts of appalling random thuggery on casual members of the public by some sort of special federal security police force acting on the President's orders in Portland, Oregon.
Do any shipmates nearer at hand,
- know anything about this?
- can say whether the description 'a series of acts of appalling random thuggery on casual members of the public by some sort of special federal security police force acting on the President's orders' is fair or unfair?
- can say what the underlying story is really about?
The versions I've read refer to demonstrations, but:-
a. give the impression that, if there are demonstrations, they aren't very large ones,
b. strongly imply that the victims of the thuggery seem to be set upon at random and aren't necessarily the actual demonstrators. The stories therefore read as though the special security police force is running amok, and, perhaps most significant,
c. give no explanation of what the demonstrations are about, what it was that might have provoked such violent government action.
Portland Oregon is a long way from here, and not a place most of us know much about. Looking it up in Wikipedia, it doesn't look like the sort of place where one would expect to encounter riots or civil tumult.
Alternatively, is this something that hasn't been happening, some sort of fake news?
It's real enough to have been covered by both the nytimes and wapo.
Several of my friends and my son and his family live in Portland.
Since we're getting into vexillology, time for the premiere episode of "Fun With Flags" (YouTube).
Yes, it's really scary. Some additional factors: A lot of folks on the west coast aren't especially fond of (Washington,) DC interfering with anything out here. There've been various levels of independence and regional autonomy movements for a long time. I wouldn't think that most involved would get violent about it. (Then again, the Malheur standoff...)
This might heat up those movements, though.
Unless I'm missing something that's obvious, there's no obvious suggestion in those links that there's a dangerous secessionist movement in Oregon or that the local state administration's approach is because they'd like to emulate the Catalans.
At the moment, I'm reading this as sinister and yet another very dirty stain on the President's little hands. Is that unfair?
Per NPR news, protestors broke into the police union HQ and set it on fire. The article doesn't mention, but NPR's broadcast mentions they set Dumpsters on fire.
I very much think someone should look deeply into who the violent protestors are, because they might be other than BLM supporters. Some of the violence elsewhere was reportedly caused by outside agitators.
T hates Democrat-friendly places, and Portland may be one. He's threatened sanctuary cities, liberal places (SF and California, etc.), and he's not exactly a friend of POC. He's been threatening to send in people to retake various cities. Sending in violent "protestors" gives reason to do that.
And why in the world are the agents from Customs & Border Patrol??? I haven't heard anything about the people they captured being undocumented.
The border with Canada is closed to all but essential traffic, so they have been redeployed. Politically and legally, it's probably easier for Trump to use ICE, a strictly federal agency, as his brown shirts, rather than the national guard, which is sort of under both state and federal control.
ETA: AIUI, the various federal law enforcement agencies (ATF, DEA, etc.) can also temporarily (or permanently) work in each others'areas of responsibility.
(Oregon, like the other West Coast states, broadly speaking, has a metropolitan progressive coastline and a rural conservative interior.)
Here's a New York Times piece that covers the various legalities involved.
For those who are interested, here's the DHS's list of offenses in Portland that they say they're reacting to. You'll note that most of them involve graffiti or other small-scale property crimes. At any rate, the slapdash way the DHS was put together in the panic days after 9/11 seems like it was a land mine left lying around, and the Trump administration* seems very good at finding all the land mines in the federal government.
First, apart from calling the protestors "violent anarchists", is there any evidence the protestors actually are either anarchists or particularly violent? Are the forces of Laura Norder entitled to do what they like so long as they call the demonstrators an appropriately threatening sounding name?
Second, by the standards of demos here, 150-250 demonstrators is a pretty small demo. Even 4-500 isn't that big. Estimates as to numbers vary, but when Greta Thunberg came to the city where I live shortly before Covid somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 people, many of them children, turned out to support her. That's a proper sized demo. There was no disorder.
Or is it, which I've commented on before on these boards, that demos automatically have to be taken much more seriously in a country where anyone can go into a shop and buy heavy duty weaponry? There must be a problem with policing public order if any protestor might have a submachine gun concealed in their rucksack. With that potential, I can see that you can't really talk about any sort of right of 'peaceful protest'.
Incidentally, If the border is closed, shouldn't the immigration people be fully occupied in stopping people from trying to cross it?
And are the sort of people whose normal jobs are to sit in booths, check peoples' passports, and examine their luggage for contraband really likely to be that well trained for heavy duty riot control - even if when they get there, it turns out there's no proper riot and they have to invent one? This may sound a bit thick, but do all these sets of initials, ICE, ETA, ATF, DEA stand for various things, or are they just there to make the organisations sound suitably heavy? What do they mean and what do they all do?
It should be noted that the U.S. coastline is considered to be "the border", not just land crossings. CPB considers its jurisdiction to be anywhere within 100 miles of "the border", which includes the borders with Canada and Mexico, all U.S. coastlines, and any airport that receives either international passengers or international cargo. By this definition ~75% of the U.S. population lives on "the border".
ETA - Edited to Add (also the Employment & Training Administration)
AIUI - As I Understand It
ICE - Immigration & Customs Enforcement
ATF - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (now technically the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives but they haven't changed the acronym)
DEA - Drug Enforcement Agency
CPB - Customs & Border Protection (also the Corporation for Public Broadcasting)
And yes, they like the alphabet soup names in part because it makes them sound heavy. Also so they can act offended when you don't know what their acronym stands for.
GK thanks for that article and the question about the branch of law enforcement being used. My grave fear is that extremists are working within the protests to amp up the violence. They want, I fear, more unreasonable arrests, more egregious violence from the authorities. They want, like most really hardcore extremists, to convince others to martyr themselves for their cause, which is of course the cause of chaos.
The great problem is that the US Government is also led by extremists. I fear, as I'm sure we all do, that these extremists also want the violence to escalate. I fear that they want to convince their supporters (not ordinary Americans, just their supporters), that the time for decisive action is now. The more the Portland protesters damage property, by spray paint or throwing pebbles, or even better by smashing and burning stuff, the more that the White House extremists can convince their supporters that the survival of the America they know (which is a fictive America, as always), requires drastic and extreme action, not only against the protesters in Portland, but against anyone who supports the protest.
I have a great deal of faith in the institutional strength of the Federal Government and State Governments. If the White House extremists push things too far right now, I am confident they will fail. But I am not 100% confident and I fear for you (and me, for myself and my loved ones too). I fear the fight. If Trump has another four years to deal with malcontents in the Military, such a situation will be even more fragile.
Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on us for we sin.
"Out of Portland tear gas, an apparition emerges, capturing the imagination of protesters" (LA Times, via Yahoo).
This is one of those iconic moments that will be in memories and history books, and on posters and t-shirts. And the reporter, Richard Read, really got that, and expressed it very well.
**Don't miss this. Seriously.**
I would.
She wouldn’t.
Often used in public by immature and unpleasant boys who think women are objects.
My answer “she wouldn’t” was to indicate that the brave, assertive, strong, unidentified woman would not even look at @Thatcheright
Just Trump's tendency to double down whenever something doesn't work. There was a lot of blowback from using police to shoot and gas peaceful protesters at Lafayette Square so Trump could have his Bible photo op, so he decided to double down with secret police abductions in Portland, OR. Now that the secret police stuff seems to be angering more people than it's impressing I wonder what he's going to do to double down on that?
Didn't say she would.
Anyway, she might be a double bagger under her mask, where I have to wear one in case hers falls off.
I would imagine there are many frightened residents of Portland, who want law and order to return to their city so they can venture out again without fear of being attacked by a rampaging mob, who hope he does go that far and soon.
You never know, it might become a Trump stronghold in November, once he has removed all the violent protestors!
Is there any evidence (or truth) that the protestors are more violent than the uniformed people sent there to stop the violence?
Of course not. That would be pointless. If you are going in to stop violent protestors or fight a war against an aggressive enemy, you need to be more violent than the protestors or the enemy, or you will lose.
I would hope that the violence applied by the authorities is sufficient to get the job done, otherwise good people will be put at risk.
But I have good manners! I said I would didn't I, which is the reaction I'm sure she was after. I bet she wouldn't have got her kit off to prance around if she didn't look like she does.
Do you really think most males on the planet who sees those images doesn't think about sex? She knew that before she started.
My guess is she will be reveal her identity on social media in a few days time before beginning a career as an "influencer", which I believe is some kind of job these days.
So given that a lot of the "violence" seems to be in the form of graffiti, your solution is for the police to be even more aggressive in applying graffiti? And that people will be big fans of this? Truly you have a dizzying intellect!
What level of violence do you think justifies unmarked vehicles with unidentified federal officers grabbing people at random off the street?
So what? It isn't victimless... https://securipedia.eu/mediawiki/index.php/Security_issue:_Graffiti#Impacts
It turns a safe area into an unsafe one, making the people who live there frightened, and impoverishing the area.
Would that more police forces around the world take it as seriously.
Banksy would be doing a five-year stretch if it were down to me.
They weren't random. They were on the streets in an area where rioting is taking place.
If they weren't on the streets they couldn't have been arrested.
Host hat on
This tasteless and sexist tangent is contributing nothing to serious discussion about Trump’s presidency. Do not continue it.
Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
Walking the streets of a free country is not a crime, nor is it violence. Neither is taking part in a protest. Are you really saying it's ok to kidnap people for being near part of a city where other people may or may not have been committing a crime?