America - The Official Thread

[Chrunch Houston]

I must have missed where you mentioned setting fires and breaking windows. Next time you move the goalposts, perhaps you could be a little more specific please.

Moving the goalposts, really? I said "Republicans don't riot and cause chaos in the streets." and in response, to prove me wrong, you post two pictures of what appear to be Republicans, not rioting, not causing chaos, and not even in the streets.

 

[Famine]

I am defending law enforcement.

No, you aren't. In fact you're specifically defending the abuse of the Fourth Amendment.

 

[UKMikey]

Moving the goalposts, really? I said "Republicans don't riot and cause chaos in the streets." and in response, to prove me wrong, you post two pictures of what appear to be Republicans, not rioting, not causing chaos, and not even in the streets.

I see. We're buying into the idea that whenever Democrats get together and protest, buildings are burned and windows are broken, just like in the cherrypicked footage on Fox. It doesn't matter which side is doing the agitating, those Dems are evil.



Where is the violence, where are the shattered windows? I don't see any fires either.

But I suppose this is different.

 

[Dotini]

If you are looking for shattered glass and fires, you need to look at Portland, Oregon. It's been going on there for over a month.
https://www.kptv.com/news/rioters-s...cle_ff9f3fe8-a281-11ea-bfa0-db0871dfb5d6.html

Luckily it petered out in Seattle, but the revolution is going forward nearer to its epicenter.

 

[UKMikey]

If you are looking for shattered glass and fires, you need to look at Portland, Oregon. It's been going on there for over a month.
https://www.kptv.com/news/rioters-s...cle_ff9f3fe8-a281-11ea-bfa0-db0871dfb5d6.html

Luckily it petered out in Seattle, but the revolution is going forward nearer to its epicenter.

I'm really not and your footage isn't available in my country. If people want to cause violence they will. I'm not seeing this as Democrat sponsored violence though, unless I'm missing something.

 

[NotThePrez]

Has anyone actually sat back and thought that Trump might just simply be following what his advisors said?

Yes, and that doesn't really help. If anything it shows, at an absolute minimum, a severe lack of tact within his administration, and a president who's complacent in such dealings, rather than one who can stop and think long enough about the possible ramifications of such a move.

And I doubt y'all will believe me but I've actually been picked up in an unmarked car with plain clothes detectives.
They simply asked if I was so and so, which I was and before I could say yes or no I was in the car and whisked away to the precinct before I could remember what I had done also with no explanation of where we're going or why till we got there.

I say this with all due respect, as I obviously don't know the optics of your situation, but one of the big differences here is that it sounds like you were taken in by police officers who did the bare minimum to identify themselves (I do however take issue with those officers putting you into the car without fully identifying themselves or stating why they needed you). That's not quite on the same level as two rifle-armed, camo'd and (seemingly) body armour-laden "cops" (assuming that they were actually police officers) popping out of an unmarked minivan and just grabbing a guy and taking him away without identifying themselves or stating that they were placing their target under arrest. Just having the word "police" on such a uniform doesn't quite cut it for me, especially as I could probably get a similar patch from my local costume shop.

I mean seriously I'm laughing reading the comments here. Y'all don't know if they have outstanding warrants or what they were arrested for. And y'all obviously haven't been in "serious" trouble before(which is a good thing for y'all). But there is NO proof it was unconstitutional. Y'all don't know why they were actually arrested.

The nature of these detainments makes an argument that the suspect's 4th Amendment rights are being violated. It's also important to know why these people are being taken away. As @Joey D mentioned, if these guys are being detained for anything other than federal crimes (which as far as I can tell is pretty much limited to vandalizing federal buildings) then that is very much a violation of the 10th Amendment as well.

This is very much a situation where it would be in The Fed's best interest to give some idea of why these people are being detained, or to even say "we don't know who these guys are." The fact that nothing concrete has come out of DC is extremely concerning.

And the whole it's unconstitutional crap doesn't fly in court. If they have a warrant they can pick you up however they please.

Again, as a regular citizen, I would expect these "officers" to say "we're issuing a warrant for your arrest," or at very least identify themselves verbally as officers, not immediately detain someone and whisk them away, especially while clearly being videotaped.

Those people could of had warrants for previous destruction in previous riots or other things(the best way to get caught when you are wanted is to go around and do more stupid stuff.

I still fail to see how a reasonable reaction to a warrant arrest is to ride up on someone if pretty much military garb, detain them, throw them into the back of an unmarked vehicle and drive off with no real identification. For all we know, that could just as well be a kidnapping.

Y'all don't know, just like I don't but I know if all measures were taken in said arrests. Nothing about the arrest was illegal.

Unless I'm missing something here, that's a glaring contradiction. You say that you don't know all the optics of the detainment, but you also say that you know that all measures were taken and that it wasn't illegal.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not seeing this as Democrat sponsored violence though, unless I'm missing something.

The demonstrations and protest is being "sponsored" in numerous ways by progressive and socialist Democrats in Seattle. The establishment "neoliberal" Democrats are waffling. The violence is being most effectively instigated/perpetrated by anarchists, whose politics are closer to the Unabomber. The violence has tarnished and broken apart the unity of the protest movement here in Seattle. The BLM ship is sinking when it is tied to the anchor of arson, revolution and violence.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I see. We're buying into the idea that whenever Democrats get together and protest, buildings are burned and windows are broken, just like in the cherrypicked footage on Fox. It doesn't matter which side is doing the agitating, those Dems are evil.



Where is the violence, where are the shattered windows? I don't see any fires either.

But I suppose this is different.

That video was posted over a month ago. I can't post a video of what is going on this weekend. They are very AUP unfriendly. They are full of fire and violence and even if the crowds weren't shouting obscenities non-stop, the filthy graffiti is in nearly every frame.

But again, you have not shown any violent Republican mobs.

We do, however, have these guys.

 

[DesertPenguin]

The demonstrations and protest is being "sponsored" in numerous ways by progressive and socialist Democrats in Seattle. The establishment "neoliberal" Democrats are waffling. The violence is being most effectively instigated/perpetrated by anarchists, whose politics are closer to the Unabomber. The violence has tarnished and broken apart the unity of the protest movement here in Seattle. The BLM ship is sinking when it is tied to the anchor of arson, revolution and violence.

Citation needed.

 

[UKMikey]

Citation needed.

I really would like to hear this as well. It's tough to buy into the story that anarchists and Democrats are working together.

 

[Dotini]

What does Fox News' 🤬 taste like?

Citation needed.

Exactly what is your question?

I am a Seattleite. I watch daily all 4 local channels and subscribe to the daily Seattle Times newspaper. Fox News is not involved here.

@UKMikey

If you would learn about the anarchists, read the Wikipedia article, the four major works of John Zerzan, the Unabomber manifesto, and spend some time in Eugene, Oregon. I have done all of those things. I have been studying and living among anarchists for over 20 years. I actually believe in part of what they espouse. I see it taking place, but I take no part in violence and revolution.

There is a real, successful revolution gaining strength in America, and the anarchists are leveraging and hijacking it to the best of their considerable abilities. If you would destroy the BLM movement and any merit it may have, burden it with gratuitous fire and blood.

Like I said before, the progressive and socialist Democrats are working with, sponsoring and taking advantage of the BLM movement. The anarchists are not receiving support directly, but are inheriting it from the passive, ready for change radical Dems. They are being released from arrest, they are being given cover, their crimes are not addressed. But they are destroying any good done by peaceful protest and demonstration. I believe in part of what is behind the BLM movement. But that does not extend to association with riot and revolution, and I think realists for real progress for people of color realize that.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

A University of Texas law professor's take on the federal agents in Portland:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-are-federal-law-enforcement-officers-doing-portland

 

[UKMikey]

Like I said before, the progressive and socialist Democrats are working with, sponsoring and taking advantage of the BLM movement. The anarchists are not receiving support directly, but are inheriting it from the passive, ready for change radical Dems. They are being released from arrest, they are being given cover, their crimes are not addressed. But they are destroying any good done by peaceful protest and demonstration. I believe in part of what is behind the BLM movement. But that does not extend to association with riot and revolution, and I think realists for real progress for people of color realize that.

Oh, boy...

I'll leave it to someone else to verify or disprove this theory as I'm done trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.

 

[McLaren]

The demonstrations and protest is being "sponsored" in numerous ways by progressive and socialist Democrats in Seattle. The establishment "neoliberal" Democrats are waffling. The violence is being most effectively instigated/perpetrated by anarchists, whose politics are closer to the Unabomber. The violence has tarnished and broken apart the unity of the protest movement here in Seattle. The BLM ship is sinking when it is tied to the anchor of arson, revolution and violence.

Except BLM protestors have repeatedly distanced themselves from such acts, and even in some occasions, proactively blocked rioting.

So, what's really happening here is the BLM ship is trying to get rid of the dead weight (rioters) and float again, while the Conservatives are on the dock throwing more **** onto the boat.

 

[Dotini]

Except BLM protestors have repeatedly distanced themselves from such acts, and even in some occasions, proactively blocked rioting.

Yes, BLM are acutely aware, at least in Seattle, they are being scuttled by murder and mayhem in their midst. Black-on-black drive-by drug murder ended CHOP/CHAZ definitively.

So, what's really happening here is the BLM ship is trying to get rid of the dead weight (rioters) and float again, while the Conservatives are on the dock throwing more **** onto the boat.

The rioters are NOT dead. They very actively hold the BLM movement by the neck and they are so far tied to it at the hip. There are no conservatives in Seattle, and I don't know what they are doing elsewhere. Here, the mom and pop neighborhood citizens who voted in the radical city council now trying to defund our police 50% and give the other 50% to community activists are having sober second thoughts about who they are going to support at the next election.

 

[McLaren]

The rioters are NOT dead. They very actively hold the BLM movement by the neck and they are so far tied to it at the hip. There are no conservatives in Seattle, and I don't know what they are doing elsewhere. Here, the mom and pop neighborhood citizens who voted in the radical city council now trying to defund our police 50% and give the other 50% to community activists are having sober second thoughts about who they are going to support at the next election.

You're missing the point.

Black Lives Matter has repeatedly tried to tell the public the rioters are not them, and have worked hands-on to prove it. Conservatives across the country however, continue to just ignore that work & act like rioters & protesters are one in the same. BLM activists got out of CHAZ/CHAD when it became a loitering festival for young adults, yet its failed attempt at whatever it was trying to accomplish continues to be tied to BLM.

The ship is only sinking b/c Conservatives keep actively pushing it under water as much as the "violence" tied to it is pulling it down.

 

[huskeR32]

Where is the violence, where are the shattered windows?

During the protests in my city last month, it wasn't BLM breaking windows; it was white Republican dudes in masks doing it to try and cast negative light on the protesters. And when they were seen by any member of BLM, they'd be run off.

Anecdotal? Yes. But it happened here, and it surely happened across the country too. Some violence and property damage was caused by BLM, some was caused by people who wanted to give BLM that reputation.

Enough with your black and white nonsense. Republicans aren't little goody-two-shoed folks who act perfectly all the time.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

During the protests in my city last month, it wasn't BLM breaking windows; it was white Republican dudes in masks doing it to try and cast negative light on the protesters. And when they were seen by any member of BLM, they'd be run off.

Anecdotal? Yes. But it happened here, and it surely happened across the country too. Some violence and property damage was caused by BLM, some was caused by people who wanted to give BLM that reputation.

Enough with your black and white nonsense.* Republicans aren't little goody-two-shoed folks who act perfectly all the time.

More likely it was white antifa thugs. If it were Republicans I think it would have made the news. Although I will admit most hard core white suprimisist thugs and malitia types, that would do that sort of thing, probably vote Republican.

I don't think the looting was from BLM. I have seen plenty of videos of white Antifa thugs smashing store windows, and encouraging black kids to go in and loot. Antifa wasn't looting, they would move on to the next store and get the looting started there.

There is a video of an Antifa punk with a pick hammer, chipping up chunks of concrete ammo from a sidewalk when BLM protesters grabbed him and dragged his happy ass right over to a group of cops.

* I am not racist, Democrats are the ones that have to inject race into everything, I don't. Everything from 'you're a victim' to affirmative action. From the KKK to Jim Crow, to slavery, which, as I am sure you know, was ended by Republicans.

 

[Dotini]

The mobs were at it again today in Seattle. About 200-300 people armed with baseball bats and incendiary devices marched from one police precinct to another, destroying windows, setting fires and attacking officers. Selected federal buildings and courthouse along the way as well as Amazon and Starbucks were vandalized and looted. About 12 officers were injured, one hospitalized. Two persons were arrested. But the police took no action to prevent the damages caused by the mob. They are heavily restricted by the city council as to tactics and weapons.

The stated non-negotiable goals of the BLM movement include reparations to blacks in the form of a livable lifetime income, defunding police and immunity from arrest, prosecution and criticism. The black-clad anarchists are very happy to support these goals. Their movements work symbiotically together and are effectively provided sanction and endorsement by the majority radicals on the city council. When you bend the knee to BLM, you are signaling your support and fealty to the violent mob action that accompanies them, and to the achievement of their stated goals. They, working together, have achieved the perfect strategy for successful social revolution in America, or at least the rich, woke portions of it.

The pandemic is also providing great support to the revolution. Widespread unemployment, soaring costs and shrinking individual and business tax bases will provide the perfect climate of opportunity for socialist solutions. The revolution is at the threshold of success in Seattle, although some individuals and businesses are having 2nd thoughts. The council has passed a new tax revenue law, taxing high income jobs at Amazon, Microsoft and other successful companies. Accordingly, some of these companies will be closing down and leaving Seattle behind. Every revolution carries the seeds of its own destruction.

 

[Liquid]

From the KKK to Jim Crow, to slavery, which, as I am sure you know, was ended by Republicans.

Own goal.

Comparing today's Democratic Party with the Democratic Party of 150 years ago is a reductive, simplistic fallacy that has been pointed out many, many times previously in this thread.

 

[Dotini]

A political party is a brilliant means to organize, acquire, control and keep centralized power across a continent consisting of sovereign states within a federal republic.

However, it only works well with two parties. Otherwise, it is extremely difficult to organize the super-majority required to make sweeping changes to the law and especially to the constitution.

IMHO, the original Republican Party began as opposition to slavery and perhaps in a crucial sense ended with Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln fought the civil war initially on the need to reunite the union. Along the way, he found it militarily expedient and morally necessary to free the slaves. He partially abolished slavery in the Emancipation Proclamation. It was General Sherman who, after consulting with black elders in Savannah, created Field Order 15, the plan for the freed slaves to succeed in the way they themselves wished. This came to be known as "40 acres and a mule", and was later rescinded by Democrat President Andrew Johnson after Lincoln's assassination. Lincoln and VP Johnson were elected on a unity ticket.

 

[Blitz24]

Own goal.

Comparing today's Democratic Party with the Democratic Party of 150 years ago is a reductive, simplistic fallacy that has been pointed out many, many times previously in this thread.

If I'm not mistaken, haven't the two parties effectively switched sides since that time?

 

[huskeR32]

More likely it was white antifa thugs. If it were Republicans I think it would have made the news. Although I will admit most hard core white suprimisist thugs and malitia types, that would do that sort of thing, probably vote Republican.

I don't think the looting was from BLM. I have seen plenty of videos of white Antifa thugs smashing store windows, and encouraging black kids to go in and loot. Antifa wasn't looting, they would move on to the next store and get the looting started there.

There is a video of an Antifa punk with a pick hammer, chipping up chunks of concrete ammo from a sidewalk when BLM protesters grabbed him and dragged his happy ass right over to a group of cops.

Doesn't matter how predictable it was that you'd never even consider any thing that might counter your worldview, it's still funny when it happens.

Dude, there is no Antifa in my city. On the weekends, farm boys would come into town, smash some windows, spray paint some walls, and then during the week, it would magically calm way down again. Just peaceful BLM crowds gathering near the capital during the evenings, doing nothing more objectionable than staying out past curfew.

* I am not racist, Democrats are the ones that have to inject race into everything, I don't. Everything from 'you're a victim' to affirmative action. From the KKK to Jim Crow, to slavery, which, as I am sure you know, was ended by Republicans.

Sure, by a version of the party that doesn't exist anymore. Again, you're being black and white here, and leaning on the word "Republicans" without acknowledging the history behind it all. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and ended Jim Crow, the Democrats suddenly and completely lost their long-standing grip on southern politics. Pretty much overnight, millions of former Democrats abandoned the party, and the Republicans' very successful "Southern Strategy" to win those voters over by stoking racial resentment and fear was born. And you don't have to take my word for it, many political strategists, probably most notably Reagan chief advisor Lee Atwater, openly admitted it.

In many very real ways, the parties pretty much switched places because of the Civil Rights movement. So to give credit for that to the modern Republican party is laughably uninformed and short-sighted. This, of course, has been pointed out many times in this very thread, but I suspect it won't be heard by any more ears now than it has been before.

--

EDIT: I just realized that you took me saying "Enough with your black and white nonsense" as an accusation that you were making everything about racism, or that you were racist. That's not at all what I meant by that. I was saying that you're being overly simplistic and binary with your statements. i.e., "Democrats do A, Republicans never do A."

There's grey area in everything, including the behavior of Republicans (or as you know them, the Greatest People Who Ever Lived).

When you denounce all "leftist" protesters as "lawless thugs," you're buying into and helping spread all the fearmongering nonsense from Fox and the like. I know that plays well on Facebook, but folks here see right through it.

 

[Joey D]

Judge Esther Salas was the target of a potential hit over the weekend that left her son dead and her husband wounded.

New Jersey federal judge's son killed, husband critical after being shot at home

While what happened in itself is bad, there's more to the story. Judge Salas was recently assigned to the lawsuit against Deutsche Bank by investors. In the lawsuit, the investors claim that Deutsche Bank didn't adhere to an anti-money laundering policy and, this is the crucial detail, overlooked Jeffery Epstein, and the money he was getting for sex trafficking. I'm not saying some rich and powerful person ordered the hit because they're connected with Epstein, but if, how does the old saying go? If the shoe fits.

 

[TexRex]

How so, I'm saying that documentation is needed for other legal activities, such as employment, did you know that illegal immigrants face an estimated wage penalty of 11.3 percent relative to legal immigrants?

This is just a feedback loop.

Documentation is required for employment because those who have deemed the presence of these people to be illegal without reasonable justification have made it a requirement, and such a requirement makes it more difficult for those whose presence has been deemed illegal without reasonable justification to find employment. Employers are able to take advantage of these people because their presence has been deemed illegal without reasonable justification.

This particular line you've taken up is especially funny when contrasted with you having railed against legal immigration, at one point [hilariously] citing housing shortages and environmental detriment in arguments against.

Really, it just smacks of you acknowledging that you failed with door number one ("durr but it's da law") and attempting door number two.

Or do you think that labor market regulations are not reasonably justified too or that citizens should not have control over migration into their own country?

No individual, regardless of citizenship status, should have any say regarding who does or does not get to occupy land that said individual does not privately own.

Yes, but far-left is using this tactic to shut up the dissent (sometimes even in real-life) and I'm using it to exaggerate impression that some people give here, so they can think about what they say and how it sound to people with different viewpoint.

No, you're using this tactic to shut up the dissent (sometimes even in real-life) and far-left is using it to exaggerate impression that some people give, so they can think about what they say and how it sound to people with different viewpoint.

Do you see how stupid that looks? You're using precisely the same tactic for which you've expressed contempt when employed by those you oppose but you're trying to paint your use of it as righteous.

You literally took the things I said and twisted them into something that you could more easily attack and to which you could apply your polemical dog whistles.

scare quotes

noun
plural noun: scare quotes; noun: scare quote; plural noun: scarequotes

1. quotation marks placed round a word or phrase to draw attention to an unusual or arguably inaccurate use.

Per Wikipedia:

"Writers use scare quotes for a variety of reasons. They can imply doubt or ambiguity in words or ideas within the marks, or even outright contempt. They can indicate that a writer is purposely misusing a word or phrase or that the writer is unpersuaded by the text in quotes, and they can help the writer deny responsibility for the quote. In general, they express distance between writer and quote."

Note that I have not utilized scare quotes above, rather I've quoted another source directly (albeit sans imbedded citations to make reading easier, though those imbedded citations may be accessed by clicking the link provided above the quoted material).

I used it to indicate arguably inaccurate use, because even "maybe communist" is arguably innacurate.

"Maybe communist" is arguably inaccurate, as in "actually communist" may still apply? Why suggest an individual is a communist, informed solely by them having purchased a statue depicting a notable communist, if not to simply cast labels as you've demonstrated a propensity to do (even unironically)?

My whole original post was in tongue-in-cheek style about funny story covering buying of "offensive" statues. So again exaggeration on purpose.

So again sarcasm defense. It's having a bit of a moment.

but it's true, I would either register and pay the fee to comply or risk punishment. And I would contact my elected representatives about the issue and/or vote in different representatives who better represent my opinions.

But you said people don't get to choose which laws to obey.

If a law isn't just, and indeed infringes upon rights of an individual and/or group or those other than that individual and/or group, individuals and/or groups should absolutely not obey it. That includes immigration law, which isn't just and indeed infringes upon the rights of individuals and groups. Of course such an assertion is not an indication that I'm advocating for open borders and/or anarchy, because I'm not.

Amusingly, even one of Fox's anchors put his foot down over some of it last night.

And Trump went on to repeat the falsehood on Twitter.

Lie faster than your lies can be debunked and from all platforms made available to you. Condition your base to spread your lies from all platforms made available to them so that the lies may spread faster than the truth that contradicts them. It's called firehosing and it's something we weren't prepared for when the internet and social media fell into our laps.

Employing undocumented worker is illegal activity.

Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) it is illegal for employers to knowingly employ undocumented workers. When employees are hired, their employer is required to ask for documents. The documents must show their identity and authorization to work in the U.S.

https://www.workplacefairness.org/undocumented-workers

It's illegal because there exists a statute that prohibits it, not because it's inherently wrong, which it isn't.

China implemented a statute that prohibits the wearing of cropped shirts that leave the wearer's lower torso exposed and the wearing of shirts in such a manner that the wearer's lower torso is left exposed. You seemed to indicate contempt for such a statute. One might say the statute wasn't reasonably justified. I'm one who absolutely would say (and indeed have said) that.

Curiously, you've also advocated for a burqa ban--a statute that prohibits the wearing of certain clothing or the wearing of clothing in a certain manner--which is also not reasonably justified. Incidentally, China has also banned burqas and "abnormal beards" (whatever that means) in part of the country.

Honestly, I don't understand why it even matters and I really don't understand why you care so much about illegal immigrants in America since you're in the Czech Republic. It might be an issue in your country, I have no idea, but it seems like it'd be better to try and fight that than worrying about what's going on in the states.

Yeah, it's super weird that someone would advocate for nationalist agendas in a country in which they don't reside. Like...why?

Still--and I'm sure you were commenting on the curiosity of it and not suggesting that an individual isn't entitled to such opinions, so this isn't directed at you so much as it's something I'm simply compelled to say--there's nothing to say that users here can't have opinions on things that don't impact them directly.

Anyone else a little concerned that the administration appears to be using CBP as bagmen?

Faceless, no official designations, no name tags, no government vehicles. What the hell is CBP even doing detaining American citizens nowhere near the border? Keep an eye on these enforcement agencies (including ICE) that have more or less direct chain of command to the president, without something like the Pentagon to moderate, and with a ground force ideologically aligned with Trump.

This is the first thing that came to mind and it gave me a chuckle when it did, so I'm just gonna put it here:

jackbooted government thugs

...

The damn road to
TYRANNY
is paved with
EXECUTIVE ORDERS​

Trumpkins opposing mask orders. Oh, irony...how the stupid so frequently fail to recognize you.

This seems to be what she was exposing:

Spoiler

What did I just watch?!

I guess she's limited her exposé to her conspiracy-guzzling Qanon buddies now. Personally, I find their proliferation on social media far scarier than any late night CG cartoon featuring clearly fictitious events.

Of course, it's always pedophiles with these people. I get it, pedophilia is something that I suspect very nearly everyone can get behind as being awful, but it's like they have no imagination.

What gets me is these super-powered pedo pols are running absolutely everything all while secretly trafficking children for sexual exploitation, and yet their misdeeds are known by some of the stupidest people on the planet who somehow haven't yet been killed to prevent further propagation of such privileged information.

I suspect something like half of these people had mothers who pushed their soft spot in to collect cigarette ash during breastfeeding, while the rest were merely deprived of oxygen while in the womb, possibly even deliberately, as if expectant mothers can will reduced oxygenated blood in the placenta in the same way these ignorami undoubtedly think victims of rape can will their egg to not be fertilized by their attacker--and obviously if a rape victim still managed to get pregnant, it means she actually wanted to get laid and this constitutes consent.

You're missing the point.

Black Lives Matter has repeatedly tried to tell the public the rioters are not them, and have worked hands-on to prove it. Conservatives across the country however, continue to just ignore that work & act like rioters & protesters are one in the same. BLM activists got out of CHAZ/CHAD when it became a loitering festival for young adults, yet its failed attempt at whatever it was trying to accomplish continues to be tied to BLM.

The ship is only sinking b/c Conservatives keep actively pushing it under water as much as the "violence" tied to it is pulling it down.

Not missing. Ignoring.

It's deflection. It's obfuscation. It's the ****sticks bringing up crime rates and justified police shootings and black-on-black violence in Chicago in an attempt to counter the idea that police are utilizing excessive force against even already restrained individuals, or bringing up crimes for which those extrajudicially murdered by those tasked with enforcing law were already held accountable to suggest they deserved it, or countering peaceful protest by invoking COVID-19 when they themselves don't want to be told to wear a mask and show even the smallest amount of consideration for literally everyone around them, or crying about atrocities in China as if to say, "if you don't complain about this, you don't get to complain about that".

But with Dotini, there's another layer on top of the deflection and obfuscation. There's the pattern of attention-seeking behavior evident in the propensity for sensationalist rhetoric, the sudden subject changes at the slightest indication that an argument has been countered and his regularly playing the victim. It's the sort of thing that you desperately want to ignore, but then you know he's just going to keep spewing his conspiratorial claptrap without restraint and someone else is going to get sucked in.

 

[Dotini]

The reality is DHS agents will remain in Portland, and send reinforcements to other cities if violence surges. DHS and Justice Department persons have made about 2 dozen arrests in the vicinity of the federal courthouse in Portland - not counting detentions of suspects they wanted to question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b7236a-c9f0-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html

 

[NotThePrez]

The reality is DHS agents will remain in Portland, and send reinforcements to other cities if violence surges. DHS and Justice Department persons have made about 2 dozen arrests in the vicinity of the federal courthouse in Portland - not counting detentions of suspects they wanted to question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b7236a-c9f0-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html

I'm no law expert, but I feel like that can be argued as illegal search & seizure. If it's not, then it's absolutely a slippery slope on the way to such shenanigans.

What I'm getting out of this, though, is that the DHS has gone on record saying that they will happily violate citizen's 4th Amendment rights, and if someone has a problem with it, they can get :censored:ed. Apparently local leaders have called for the Federal Agents to piss off, and the DHS has basically ignored them.

This is a situation where I can't help but wonder what'd happen if the Governor of Oregon mobilized the National Guard against these guys.

 

[Danoff]

No, you aren't. In fact you're specifically defending the abuse of the Fourth Amendment.

Apparently only the 2nd amendment is important. 1st amendment, 4th amendment, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8... none of it holds a candle to the 2nd amendment.

 

[TexRex]

Apparently only the 2nd amendment is important. 1st amendment, 4th amendment, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8... none of it holds a candle to the 2nd amendment.

What's the Second without the First?

 

[Dotini]

I'm no law expert, but I feel like that can be argued as illegal search & seizure. If it's not, then it's absolutely a slippery slope on the way to such shenanigans.

What I'm getting out of this, though, is that the DHS has gone on record saying that they will happily violate citizen's 4th Amendment rights, and if someone has a problem with it, they can get :censored:ed. Apparently local leaders have called for the Federal Agents to piss off, and the DHS has basically ignored them.

This is a situation where I can't help but wonder what'd happen if the Governor of Oregon mobilized the National Guard against these guys.

Certainly it's an extremely interesting situation that we should pay close attention to and study very carefully. Earlier in the thread I referenced many previous occasions in which the federal government dispatched forces in response to domestic violence situations. Perhaps some of them are of a similar nature?

For sure it is potentially a federal crime to set fire to a federal courthouse. At least 7 people have been arrested for this in Portland, and could face 5 to 20 years in prison.

I don't think the federal government has the option of not defending federal employees and federal property, especially a courthouse.

“It is time to stand up. It is time to tell your elected officials that the city is under siege because of their inaction. Our elected officials have condoned the destruction and chaos of our city. They have invited privilege and entitlement to burn and destroy our buildings, businesses, and livelihoods,”

-president of the Portland Police Association
​

https://www.dailywire.com/news/this...officials-are-condoning-destruction-and-chaos