There sure seems to be an abundance of that.Quote:
It allows both sides to deny responsibility for any actions
Printable View
There sure seems to be an abundance of that.Quote:
It allows both sides to deny responsibility for any actions
These are federal agents patrolling and protecting the streets and arresting people who are committing federal crimes because the local police are not able to do anything. They are not unidentifiable which has been proven already in another post. Federal agents primarily utilize unmarked vehicles anyway. Not only is there no requirement for law enforcement vehicles to be marked, but by using marked vehicles, they are now targets. Surely you have seen the tens (if not hundreds) of police vehicles destroyed across the country, so they are saving taxpayer money by using nondescript vehicles. Trump also announced he was going to send federal agents, its not like it was a surprise or secret police.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Further, these arrests may look like they are random and that they are just picking people up off the street, but that cannot be farther from the truth. They are picking up people who committed crimes after the fact in a way that allows for a quick, non-violent arrest. The public wants non-violent arrests... this is what they look like.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/02/86756...o-quell-unrest
These people are being charged. Miranda rights are not required to be read to every person being arrested; they are only read to people who are being interviewed/questioned after an arrest. If a law enforcement officer does not question you, they do not need to read you your rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/2...house-portland
https://www.jettonmeredithlaw.com/bl...isconceptions/
The State does not have the authority to tell the federal government that they cannot enforce federal crimes being committed. The state and local governments are failing to protect their communities so the federal government has been deployed to protect federal property.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/07/27/...ortland-oregon
I would like to see some photos of these "unidentified" officers.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Law enforcement officers trying to keep the peace and protect federal buildings looks worrying to you? Do you not believe in law and order? Would you prefer everyone to just bow down to these violent criminals burning down buildings?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
I can't say I believe that's what they are doing. Those federal police didn't show up in cities until Trump decided he had to run on a law and order platform. They're more than a bit strange, too, as some are CBP, which is a bit off the reservation for them. Furthermore, they appear to be overzealous, in Portland...and largely just bluster in other cities. They showed up uninvited to Portland, then Trump said they'd show up all over the place. They haven't. This is politics, not policing.
While I do think there is a point to a police presence, and they may have backed off too much, I would leave it to the cities unless the cities ask for assistance. Pushing it on them is totally in keeping with conservative values, though: Local control...unless the locals don't agree with us, then they get no say at all. This state is totally on board with that. The legislature complains bitterly when the feds do something, but go all authoritarian when cities, school districts, or health districts, want the authority to make decisions.
Interestingly, even Amon Bundy has criticized the actions in Portland. For that, I'd say he was staying consistent with his stated beliefs. He also said that his group almost threw him out over the comments...which also feels consistent: We're against the government...unless they are breaking the heads we want them to break.
One thing appears pretty clear to me, which is that there are elements on both side who are REALLY enjoying this.
And taking advantage of it. It's sad, all this, over policing, under policing, unidentified policing, vandalism, fires, shootings, this all has drowned out the message. It has given the people that didn't want to hear it plenty of ways to justify not to believe in the message.Quote:
One thing appears pretty clear to me, which is that there are elements on both side who are REALLY enjoying this.
I think MLK and Gandhi just might have been right when they preached "peaceful civil disobedience". How to get there, I have no clue and very little hope. Maybe a leader will arise, hope so.
This seems rather disingenuous to me. For one thing, those people are not police officers. Secondly, having "Police" and/or "DHS" on their clothing only does so much. For one thing, you cannot see their faces. They are also not identifying themselves by badge number, as police officers are obliged to do. I've heard right-wing militia members talking about taking matters into their own hands and it appears that that may have happened at least once in Texas now, with someone shooting into a group of protesters and killing at least one person. What would be to stop such militia members making themselves look like these federal agents and grabbing protesters off the street, bundling them into similarly unmarked vehicles and taking them away to be murdered somewhere? Police officers are required to identify themselves for very good reason. These federal agents are not doing it and that's bad for those same reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I like your perspective and agree but you may have been mislead on this,
If your talking about the incident in Austin, Tx 2 or 3 days ago the story seems to be a car turns on a street filled with protesters(by mistake or on purpose is not clear), he starts honking, people move towards his car, the person he shoots is carrying an assault rifle. The guy in the car claims the protester pointer gun at him, the protesters are saying he didn't point the gun at him. That's all the clarity I've seen so far.Quote:
I've heard right-wing militia members talking about taking matters into their own hands and it appears that that may have happened at least once in Texas now, with someone shooting into a group of protesters and killing at least one person.
Maybe your talking about a different shooting. There are plenty of idiots with guns here in the US.
I'm not sure as I've heard few details, which is why I said "may have happened". What I heard was that a man pushing his quadriplegic wife in her wheelchair was shot dead. I did hear something about someone carrying a rifle being shot but don't know if it's the same incident. This is certainly a good example of why people should not be carrying guns at all. If you can be considered to be acting in self-defense based on your state of mind and not the actions of the other party then anyone could be considered to be acting in self-defence if they see anyone near them with a gun. It's really only a matter of time before the shooting starts when two groups of angry people carrying guns oppose each other. Whether any incident that has already occurred was right-wing militia or not, some have been saying that they will take matters into their own hands. If that happens, it could be a bloodbath. The stupid thing is that they consider themselves the law-abiding ones but what they are suggesting is certainly not abiding by the law. They are fed up and want to take action, yet it never occurs to them that that's exactly why these protests started in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
I don't know if this source is reliable but it seems that your argument is quite possible : https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...-in-31-months/ it is a bit old but not so old.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
We have the same in France, a few cops that want to play anti-riot police (and do more damage than good, we had a scandal a few years ago) and a few extreme people (we call them black blocs) who only goals are to destroy whatever they can and hurt police as much as they can. they appear now at almost every manifestation. The particularity we have is that we have anti-riot force (CRS) with special equipment and training (they are train to do less wounded as possible among the people). The common police is just there for support (but some like to play "cowboys". Don't know if you have that expression).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yeah. I'm not sure that we're quite on the same page, but pretty close. When I said they were really enjoying this, I did mean that the situation gave them the freedom to do what they had wanted to do in the past, but weren't allowed to, so if that's what you meant by taking advantage of it, then we're talking about the same thing. I see it on both sides...or all three sides, actually, but the right wing faction isn't quite getting what they want. They want a safe civil war (one where they win without too much personal sacrifice), and they aren't getting that. For the others, there are people in the police and people in the protest groups, that are somewhat liberated by this.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
I wonder if the Uighur Muslims are laughing at that joke?Quote:
Originally Posted by dreammanor
I'm not convinced that you know the meaning of that word.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
Based on the rest of the spin that follows I boil it down to "I have no facts and I reject any that undermine the narrative I embrace so I'm deflecting with another made up story and some hypothetical scenarios."
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
Nobody has any facts. Not a one of us is there. I'm probably closest of the people in this thread, and I'm not close. So, we're all basing anything off of what we read, see, and are told. Not a bit of it is first hand.
That's when the politics starts to matter even more. I have no idea why DHS is there, and especially why CBP is there (a part of DHS, I believe). In The Economist for this week is a story that suggests a pretty plausible reason: DHS is totally supine, so Trump is using it as his personal militia. They've had several directors in the last three years, most of them acting, only two went through senate confirmation, and a bunch of the deputies are also acting. So, Trump has created a pliant law enforcement branch. Now he's using them in a role they were never trained for (some individuals likely were in previous jobs), and done so with his usual focus and attention to detail (none at all, for those who don't get sarcasm).
It's political theater conducted by a person who is behind in the poles, desperate to find a cause, and incapable of focusing on anything long enough to make it a cause. Since he has no good reason, and can't articulate what he doesn't have, everybody gets to read into it whatever they want. There is plenty of grist for whatever mill you happen to have. What there isn't, is an action that is both good, defensible, and clearly articulated. Those who like it are making up reasons. Those who don't like it are also making up reasons. They have to. There's nothing else.
I'd say we have some facts. Basic facts. You can see there are people/police, you can see what the area looks like in the light of day. But we don't know the whole unbiased story. I don't even think the people there know that. Just to many groups with different agendas. Plus you have the politicians and media with multiple agendas. I think the technical term for this is "It's a Mess".Quote:
Nobody has any facts. Not a one of us is there. I'm probably closest of the people in this thread, and I'm not close. So, we're all basing anything off of what we read, see, and are told. Not a bit of it is first hand.
I know that's nitpicking but I'm bored and got nothing else to do. So, I thought I'd spread some wisdom. lol
Yeah, that's my point, too. Bored.
Actually, I meant the other point. You see it in this thread. When you look at Portland, everything is seen through a prism. Everybody has a different prism to look through, too. There are some people who I feel are doing the right thing, and I'd say it's the majority. There are also some that I feel are doing the wrong thing, and I'd say that's the minority.
On average, I would say that what DHS did in Portland was a bad thing from almost every perspective. I'd say that's why Trump hasn't followed through with sending federal agents to other cities. It didn't work out the way he wanted in Portland and he has calculated (correctly, I'd say), that he's better off talking about other cities, but not actually doing anything. If that is the case, then it doesn't matter whether you felt DHS was doing the right thing or the wrong thing, because they aren't going to be doing ANY thing, since the real motivation wasn't to solve a policing problem but to solve a political problem.
This seems rather disingenuous to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
“Inconceivable!"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
That was a cute bit. The movie is brimming with them. You can still find those who haven't seen it, and watching with them was always fun.
Not so much now that we're all barricaded at home. Well, some of us anyway.
I'm not taking sides, it just came to mind after jmc post. Funny movie.
Nice, but ultimately quite wrong. It means exactly what I think it means and I was using it in exactly that sense. Let's get a definition off the web, shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Now, maybe I'm wrong but I'm assuming that dilettante is smart enough to understand that there's more to those men being identified/identifiable than he described. At the very least, he's making no effort to understand the argument. Alternatively, he's incapable of doing so. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and sticking with "disingenuous" but if you would rather go with "dumb" then that's up to you.Quote:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
As I said before, I got no horse in this race. It was a joke. Maybe you didn't see my previous post. It may not be funny but I can't be wrong, I didn't present any facts or opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
I think I started typing my reply before you submitted post #80. Regardless, my explanation is still relevant to dilettante. He now knows that I do know what the word means and why I thought it applied in that context. Of course, I suspect that he already did know that and the issue was more being offended at being accused of being disingenuous than concern that I may have meant something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
While some may be playing up an angle more than it deserves to be, the fact is that no one on the outside actually knows who these men are and if someone did just disappear, what exactly could anyone do about it? There would be no information about who took them or where they were taken. Even if someone died accidentally in custody, who is confident that those responsible would be held accountable? Not me, that's for sure.
^That. Honestly, I can buy a uniform with "Police" on it from my local costume shop. If that's all that's required to qualify me to tear gas, club and detain people on the street then your country is in a pretty sorry state. Identifiable means individually identifiable. Without that abuse of power cannot be investigated. Vigilantism cannot be investigated.Quote:
They are also not identifying themselves by badge number, as police officers are obliged to do.
You're police recently demonstrated that they felt so empowered as to be able to murder citizens on the street in full view and the protests you're looking at are a response to that. Do you really feel that the answer to this problem is to remove the full view? Your answer to a lack of accountability is less accountability?
Just... just... what? That's your justification for this?Quote:
by using marked vehicles, they are now targets. Surely you have seen the tens (if not hundreds) of police vehicles destroyed across the country, so they are saving taxpayer money
Yeah, but you were building straw men by putting words in my mouth so I thought I'd return the favour.Quote:
I never said I wanted people billy-clubbed
Edit> Oh, and JMs use of disingenuous was entirely correct. To think it wasn't was inconceivable.
I was wondering and I am asking the question to the American here. If the DHS consider the demonstrator/protestors as domestic terrorists, could they invoke the Patriot act to arrest them and make them disappear ?
As long as Bill Barr is Attorney General and the republicans have the majority in the Senate the Trump administration can do just about anything they want with impunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delaney
The difference (hopefully) is that their pants aren't held together with velcro.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I forgot the Supreme Court...it is stacked with republicans now. The members of that court like to say they are non-political and are actually liberal or conservative minded. You can put all the lipstick on that pig you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Probably not, really. Since the whole thing was political, doing something like that would have had a thoroughly negative political consequence. It likely would have reinforced Trump's base, but his base isn't enough to win, and it would have utterly alienated anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delaney
Technically, what can be done is always different from what IS done. You can do things that violate the law if the law will not be enforced. That happens a whole lot more than people realize. For example, we have speed limits. That doesn't mean you can't speed, it just means that you will probably get a ticket if you get caught speeding, and you may have to pay a fine. Everybody knows exceptions to that, though, and if you don't get caught, you can drive as fast as you want. So, every law is a matter of enforcement and consequences. It's not like a physical law, it's more of a convention as to what penalties will actually apply for certain actions.
So, technically, yeah they could, but practically, no they can't.
Actually reason has prevailed.
Portland has requested that the Oregon State Police come in to defend Federal property against the criminals and eventually the DHS cops won't have to be there in such numbers.
Oregon State Police deploy to Portland streets Thursday
Local officials are still spinning hard claiming that these "lawful protests" go wrong when "a relatively small number" of them "come out of concealment" to begin attacking police and destroying public works and buildings. Sounds like things have just gone too far and Portland doesn't want to bear the brunt of the extended anti-American political rally any longer.
What was insincere about posting two examples of Federal cops in Portland where you can see their uniforms identify them as police?
Bullshit arguments are falling like flies in this thread.
It's already been explained several times. If you didn't get it then, there's no reason to think that you'll get it now. It's pretty simple stuff that others here seem to have little issue with so I can only assume that you're determined not to see what's in plain sight. That's what's insincere.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Oh, I get it.
You parrot any nonsense that fits your narrative and reject any facts that don't Then you turn and start parroting additional nonsense hoping to cover your exposed lies. When that fails you reach into your bag of slurs.
You don't care about reality, just maintaining your fact-free bubble of BS. If I didn't know that it is conscious propagandizing I'd say it's childish.
People see right through that if they have any sense. When they do, it undermines any legitimacy your cause might have in their eyes. You are shooting yourself in the foot.
Yeah, I'm kind of thinking that you're doing the same, too. It's opinion. The facts get spun one way or the other, depending on your point of view. There is no objective truth that anyone seems to care about.
No you don't. You ask questions that have already been answered. If you disagree you disagree but if you pretend that a case hasn't already been made then you're being disingenuous, and doubly so because you're being disingenuous about being disingenuous. You can make the same accusations over and over if it makes you feel better but people see right through that if they've bothered to read this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Let me try to make it as plain as possible. There's more to these federal agents being identified/identifiable than just wearing "Police" or "DHS" on their clothing. People have voiced a number of concerns over their appearance and behaviour. You might disagree with those concerns and that's something that we can discuss. The fact that you seem not to have even considered those concerns to begin with is problematic enough but feigning ignorance of them when they are expressed right here under your nose makes it worse. The icing on the cake is when you accuse people who disagree with you of merely parroting what they've heard elsewhere, as though anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you do couldn't possibly have done so by examining the information available to them. I guess denying that someone even holds a position is a good way of avoiding having to argue against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Seriously, are you guys even reading the articles you're citing? Because you're doing a great job of making my case for me. The first paragraph from that article (emphasis mine):-
"The Oregon State Police's deployment to the city of Portland to protect government buildings downtown begins Thursday, assisting in what Gov. Kate Brown hopes will be the withdrawal of federal police and other agents who are widely viewed as escalating the unrest downtown."
Oregon State Police are going to replace the anonymous Federal agents Trump sent in. His private army, far from quashing unrest, escalated it and is being withdrawn. So, yes, reason has prevailed. But not in the way you're clearly implying.
My assumption is that those state police will be identifiable, will not be snatching peaceful protesters at random from the streets and will actually be following through with charges against the people they detain. I'm happy to give them a chance to prove that assumption correct. If they continue with the same practices I'll be raising the same concerns again.
Anti-Authoritarian. Anti-Prejudice. But not Anti-American unless you equate those things with American values.Quote:
the extended anti-American political rally
The law enforcement aren't unidentified! You're sheep for thinking that they're unidentified!
Oh wait, even Trump says they're unidentified: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaaT...outu.be&t=1707
And jeez, I know a lot of people say Biden is incoherent, but I don't know how anyone can listen to an entire interview with Trump... watching that one was extremely wearing and I had to pause it several times for breaks.
Well the Trumpers are pushing that.Quote:
And jeez, I know a lot of people say Biden is incoherent, but I don't know how anyone can listen to an entire interview with Trump... watching that one was extremely wearing and I had to pause it several times for breaks.
I can't listen to Trump for more than about few seconds. His constant lying and completely self serving statements with no regard for the American people angers me to much. They should create a Whack A Mole game with a likeness of his head. I could play it for hours. lol
I would say that the collective coherence of the candidates in the upcoming election may be the lowest in history. I would say that Trump is probably the slightly more coherent of the two when it comes to interviews but not by a big margin and when you're talking bullshit much of the time, coherence is not necessarily a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
I haven't seen Biden interviewed, is he that incoherent?
Edit> So I googled "Joe Biden Interview" and watched this one at random. He stumbles over his words at the end and, in the middle, says "I'm so forward looking to" instead of "I'm so looking forward to" but overall it didn't seem too bad - more like Bush 2000 bad than Trump 2020 bad. I'm guessing there are worse examples so Link me up folks. I'm bored and need a larf.
He had troubles even on the stump while they were still pretending there was a primary season:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WwFDktA3Cc
I don't know how to explain Trump's way of speaking.. it is just annoying and makes me anxious the entire time I hear him.
The clips I've seen of Biden (mind you they're often from right-winged sites) often give me a Grandpa Simpson vibe.
It is really pretty easy to explain Trump's way of speaking...if his mouth is moving he is lying. If he isn't reading off a teleprompter he is just making crap up. I was listening to him in an Axios interview from last week. He was saying that certain states are mailing ballots to everyone. The host corrected him saying they are sending applications for ballots. Trump repeated that lie three times and the host corrected three times. The last time Trump glared at him. Trump is surrounded by toadies/sycophants. He isn't used to being corrected when he spouts his garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
When that is really pitiful is when it costs tens of thousands of American lives like right now! That is his way of speaking.
Yeah, that's a pretty good collection of gaffs:bigyello:.Quote:
He had troubles even on the stump
The thing that struck me, though, is that it's a collection. I could produce similar from GWB pretty easily. I certainly could have done it with Raegan. With those guys, their speeches were coherent but often contained gaffs and they'd often miss-speak or get a fact wrong - from that clip I'd assume the same about Biden.
With Trump I feel like it's next level. You don't need to make a collection of out takes to make him look incoherent, you can just just watch a single speech. Does Biden ramble and segway in the way that Trump does? It's like he can't hold a single thought in his head for more than 10 seconds.
I have to doubt the veracity of it. Just like they slowed down Pelosi's voice to make her sound drunk. Faux news just got caught today for two videos of Biden where the photo chopped them so they weren't even close to the true pictures. I don't have any reason not to think those were "doctored" too.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4VH2JjWDnk
But yeah, of course those are clips aggregated to make a point.
This says "an interview" but it's really another collection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfQbYc22m7Q
I tried to find something recent, preferably all in one piece rather than clips.
I guess the cabal he fronts for isn't letting him in front of a camera much any more.
As a number of genuine left-wing pundits have expressed lately, laying low is Biden's best option at the moment. Trump is doing his job for him right now. There are those committed Trump supporters or committed Republicans who will vote for Trump regardless but it's hard to see anyone who is currently on the fence watching his latest interview with Jonathon Swan and being persuaded that he's the guy to vote for. At best, Trump will be convincing undecided voters that there's no good option and that they may as well not vote at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Actually I'm seeing a lot of the Romney camp supporting Biden. They want more interventionist wars, more favorable trade "deals" with China, and in general align with his globalist agenda. Both faces of the Clinton-Bush duopoly are cramped by the flaming bag of crap on their doorstep that Trump presents.
Establishment Democrats and Republicans do seem to agree on more than they disagree on, but there are a few key sticking points that prevent them admitting it. They can also con people into thinking that there's a choice when they are all serving the same interests for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
From the video in post 107 @ 1:30: "We hold these truths to be self evident. All men and women created by... the... oh, you know... the thing". Um, yeah, when you're running for US president and can't get that quote right it's not a good look. Although it's ironic that the presenter immediately stumbled over her own words at 1:48 (Ha! Gotta love that kind of karma. I bet the Germans have a word for that).
From those clips I still get more of a GWB "They missunderestimated me" vibe than the totally incoherent word salads that Trump spills out but, yeah, it feels like you guys have got a choice between two different levels of goober.
Correction:Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
It wasn't Faux news that I read about it was the Trump campaign that manipulated the photos:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ge%2Fstory-ans
Speaking of photos, I see that the recent Biden ads contain only old still photos and either some mystery voice-over or in some cases a Biden impersonator doing the voice-over.
I imagine they're whipping those Disney imagineers pretty hard right now trying to get Animatronic Joe working again before November,
Both of them could give any Brit a run for his money in an Upper Class Twit Olympics if they accepted foreign competitors.
Looks like Disney got at least his upper half operating again. Bolted to an armature behind a desk in his bunker like some sort of Farscape Leviathan Pilot I suppose:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9C8XapuRwk
Hilarious doctored fake news vs. reality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=316LOai3ni0
But this has gotten old. Sadly we'll see both more fake news and Biden dementia before this is over.
Why do you keep posting this crap if you know it's fake?
Derr.