Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets (UPDATE: Trump admin. deploying federal LE to cities) (1 Viewer)

[Dragon]

“All United States Marshals Service arrestees have public records of arrest documenting their charges. Our agency did not arrest or detain Mark James Pettibone.”

OPB sent DHS an extensive list of questions about Pettibone’s arrest including: What is the legal justification for making arrests away from federal property? What is the legal justification for searching people who are not participating in criminal activity? Why are federal officers using civilian vehicles and taking people away in them? Are the arrests federal officers make legal under the constitution? If so, how?

After 7 p.m. Thursday, a DHS spokesperson responded, on background, that they could confirm Wolf was in Portland during the day. The spokesperson didn’t acknowledge the remaining questions.

Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets

Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14.

www.opb.org

This story is very troublesome.

 

[Rob22278]

No Wheeler is a bad mayor. That is why he is getting his arse handed to him in the polls here..... By a avowed Socialist running to his far left.

His birthday protest again was just that until people showed up late night and tried to burn it down. Nobody condones burning private buildings- especially ones where people live.

But you said the only buildings being burned and/or destroyed were federal buildings and police precincts. So was this a federal apartment building? Or a police apartment complex?

 

[SaintForLife]

Sure, you're free to criticize whatever you want. That doesn't make your criticism valid, though. If you can't articulate a reason why NPR should catch flack for conducting an interview on a socially relevant topic, you are just an old man yelling at clouds.

If you think I need to articulate a reason why I think it's idiotic to make a case for looting then you probably need to look at your own views? Do you think that looting is okay in certain circumstances?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If you think I need to articulate a reason why I think it's idiotic to make a case for looting then you probably need to look at your own views? Do you think that looting is okay in certain circumstances?

There's a difference between criticizing the person being interviewed and criticizing the news agency for interviewing someone who recently released a book on a relevant topic. You said NPR should get blowback because "it's idiotic to try to make a defense for looting."

NPR did not defend anything, so why should they get blowback or criticism for simply interviewing an author?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I agree the messaging is a bit confusing - trying to be all things to as many people as possible.

I think the initial criticism was that the leaders in a lot of these cities invited these protests and thus are complicit in their violence. I know in Nashville the Mayor (who has shut down numerous businesses) supported and planned a protest that resulted in significant property damage including a fire in the courthouse and damages to many businesses already struggling because of the mayor's shutdown.

The criticism, imo, should be more focused on simply that these mayors are more "tolerant" of the property damage and small/medium scale assaults because they are politically aligned with the message of the protests, as opposed to protecting parts (and those parts do seem small) of their cities they took an oath to protect.

I think there is a lot of mileage that can be had with how local leaders are handling the protests and whether they are doing a good job in preventing them from becoming riots. From the outside looking in, there definitely seems to be a lot of reluctance whenever it comes to criticizing people that are "on your side".

It seems to be a difficult needle to thread. Allowing people to vent their frustrations, preventing those frustrations from becoming violent, and if they do become violent - condeming the violence while not letting that distract from people who have legitimate complaints.

Back to the actual issue, I would think this topic should be right up a conservative's alley. This is a situation where government (in the form of police) is the problem - there is dissatisfaction with how the government is suspending citizens rights in a way that appears unequal to a significant portion of the population. That should be in a conservative's wheelhouse. But at least from my observations here, on Facebook, POTUS and Republican Congressional leaders (other than Rand Paul), this does not seem to be a cause they are taking up.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I was just mocking CNN'S reporter for his silly tweets. I could drive around New Orleans and take pictures and say I don't see any cops committing violence or killing anyone, but it wouldn't mean that there isn't any in New Orleans. I'm sure that reporter knew that the violence is usually in certain areas and after dark.

I thought that was the reporter's point -- the riots/violence were only in certain areas after dark. I thought his intent was to counter the idea that Portland was burning, not that there weren't violent protests.

 

[SaintForLife]

I thought that was the reporter's point -- the riots/violence were only in certain areas after dark. I thought his intent was to counter the idea that Portland was burning, not that there weren't violent protests.

Did anyone claim or think that the whole city was burning? I haven't seen that at all? Where did you see that?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Did anyone claim or think that the whole city was burning? I haven't seen that at all? Where did you see that?

In Donald Trump's press conference, he said the entire city is ablaze. Which is why the Portland Fire Department issued a press release to say that in fact, they were not ablaze.

Fire department refutes Trump claim: 'WE ARE NOT ABLAZE IN PORTLAND'

The fire department of Portland, Ore., is refuting claims from President Trump that "the entire city is ablaze all the time” amid ongoing protests.

thehill.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

In Donald Trump's press conference, he said the entire city is ablaze. Which is why the Portland Fire Department issued a press release to say that in fact, they were not ablaze.

Fire department refutes Trump claim: 'WE ARE NOT ABLAZE IN PORTLAND'

The fire department of Portland, Ore., is refuting claims from President Trump that "the entire city is ablaze all the time” amid ongoing protests.

thehill.com

This is the transcript from the press conference.

Donald Trump Press Conference Transcript August 31

President Trump: (00:00) Just closed out another month of stock market. We had the best stock market Dow in 36 years. That's very impressive. So people are ver

www.rev.com

I think the general idea is to push back on the idea that there is rampant lawlessness and chaos. Which comes down to a matter of perception I guess.

 

[SaintForLife]

In Donald Trump's press conference, he said the entire city is ablaze. Which is why the Portland Fire Department issued a press release to say that in fact, they were not ablaze.

Fire department refutes Trump claim: 'WE ARE NOT ABLAZE IN PORTLAND'

The fire department of Portland, Ore., is refuting claims from President Trump that "the entire city is ablaze all the time” amid ongoing protests.

thehill.com

Sorry, I should have asked if any reasonable people claimed the whole city was burning.

 

[SaintForLife]

There's a difference between criticizing the person being interviewed and criticizing the news agency for interviewing someone who recently released a book on a relevant topic. You said NPR should get blowback because "it's idiotic to try to make a defense for looting."

NPR did not defend anything, so why should they get blowback or criticism for simply interviewing an author?

Oh you are just arguing semantics. Do you think that looting is ever justified?

 

[MT15]

SFL, nobody here is defending looting. NPR wasn’t advocating looting. It was an interview of someone who is using defense of looting to make a point.

Do you think Swift was really advocating eating children in A Modest Proposal?

 

[SaintForLife]

There's a difference between criticizing the person being interviewed and criticizing the news agency for interviewing someone who recently released a book on a relevant topic. You said NPR should get blowback because "it's idiotic to try to make a defense for looting."

NPR did not defend anything, so why should they get blowback or criticism for simply interviewing an author?

Nope. I didn't say that. I said: "NPR has been getting a lot blowback from this idiotic aricle." You keep arguing about what I posted, but you won't even comment on the article. Why respond to my post if you weren't interested in commenting on the article?

 

[First Time Poster]

Here's the deal. Even if the only thing occuring was looting, rioting or "fiery protest", if the sole response to George Floyd was rioting, no peaceful protest, just rioting and looting, even that behavior, criminal activity as it is, is a symptom of a larger problem. No human collective wakes up one day, looks around at their community and randomly decides, "let's set this mug on fire today. Let's destroy some businesses and take to the streets." It's always in response to something and that "something" is normally related to long-standing grievances within the community. That's not an excuse or defense if it, that's just the harsh reality of it.

And it's rich for anyone, downright disingenuous even, to highlight or take issue first, with the lawlessness of rioting and looting, while simultaneously down playing or ignoring, minimizing, mitigating or even placating the decades, centuries even, of lawlessness being perpetrated on these communities by its own government, largely unchecked for years. It's almost inhumane. It would be akin to a parent continuously pinching their child on the arm and upon the child throwing a temper tantrum at the latest pinch, they slap them across the face to get them to stop. Because, after all, tantrums are not acceptable behavior. Well, neither is pinching someone.

It's inhumane and quite frankly I'm sick of the faux posturing about the violence. As if rebellion and violence is beneath this country. This damn country was built on rebellion and violence. Anybtime this country felt a cause was noble or necessary, we ultimately used some firm of violence and rebellion to secure it. We didn't ask for independence. We went to war and we took it. We didn't ask the South to stop slavery. We went to war and made them. We didn't ask Hitler to stop. We went to war and made him stop. And so on and so forth.

Minority communities are tired of asking. When diplomacy fails, what's left? Rebellion and violence. Where do you think we learned that from? Spare me the diatribe on "hate" and "violence." What's more important? Buildings or the loss of human life and the abuse of human rights? People lose me on the rioting and looting shtick. That's so corny to me.

 

[brandon]

We didn't ask for independence.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Nope. I didn't say that. I said: "NPR has been getting a lot blowback from this idiotic aricle." You keep arguing about what I posted, but you won't even comment on the article. Why respond to my post if you weren't interested in commenting on the article?

You fail to make yourself clear. My goal is to actually get to your thoughts on the matter to understand your position, but you make that difficult. You said that NPR has gotten blowback for an article. When asked why, you said that it is because it's idiotic to mount a defense of looting. You've said that twice.

What you haven't done is show that NPR has actually done that. The interview- not article, as you keep saying- does not offer any sort of opinion from the interviewer.

Can you show that NPR defended looting in this interview?

 

[Optimus Prime]

My worry about the election and the polling of is that people don't tell the dirty truth about themselves. How many suburban housewives are going to openly talk about how enlightened they are and how they're voting for Biden but will vote for Trump because their vote is private? This is part of what happened last time and I see no reason why it won't happen again. It's that, and people are too lazy to vote.

This is why I get nervous about the polls
=============================
Former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said in an interview released Wednesday that there could be a hidden bloc of voters that will back President Trump on Nov. 3 but won't tell anybody about it, potentially taking poll watchers off guard.

Conway called these people "undercover Trump voter" in an interview with Showtime's "The Circus", reprising a term she said she coined in 2016 to help explain the president's upset victory over Hillary Clinton.

"As the person who coined the term 'hidden undercover Trump voter in 2016,' there are even more of them and they're even more committed now," Conway said. "And they're going to surprise you as to who they are this time because you've seen the poll, 62% of Republicans or Trump supporters are afraid to even express themselves, they express themselves at the ballot box."

The poll Conway appeared to be referring to was a July survey from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute. The survey said that 62% of all voters agree with the statement "the political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive." Among Democrats, 52% of people agreed with the statement, and 77% of Republicans agreed..............

Kellyanne Conway says 'undercover' Trump voters will 'surprise' at the polls

 

[SaintForLife]

I was just mocking CNN'S reporter for his silly tweets. I could drive around New Orleans and take pictures and say I don't see any cops committing violence or killing anyone, but it wouldn't mean that there isn't any in New Orleans. I'm sure that reporter knew that the violence is usually in certain areas and after dark.

I guess Wheeler isn't radical enough for the protestors

This is becoming a trend.

Citing threats, Mayor Lori Lightfoot defends ban on protesters on her block: ‘I have a right to make sure that my home is secure’

www.msn.com

 

[Farb]

This is becoming a trend.

Citing threats, Mayor Lori Lightfoot defends ban on protesters on her block: ‘I have a right to make sure that my home is secure’

www.msn.com

I am glad the elected officials that have 'stroked' the flames of the idiots, have the money and the means to relocate once their little social experiment went to shirt. While the poor are forced to stay in violence because no one they have elected gives a damn about them.