Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TheDeamon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 80
1
OMG Kamala HarriS, the S is at the end, so tricky! We should all go donate to that QANON GA congress women. This is it our last chance to end the global conspiratorial satin worshipers from ruling the world for all eternity!!!!!! Or is it our only chance to keep Biden from turning the suburbs into a Mordor like post apocalypse hellscape! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

Nah, the better one is sticking her name in google while claiming its finnish and see what comes out.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=fi&tl=en&text=kamala

2
Remember, these people were worried about crime and their property value too. Let's not forget that the guy making this statement actively blocked black people of equivalent wealth from moving in to his all-white property.

Real estate practices in the 1960's and 70's were horrid, but I doubt you're going to find more than a handful of large-scale real-estate companies/operators from that era, in certain geographical areas(like where Trump's business was) that did NOT practice that. It simply was the way business was done in that era and for all practical purposes(not literal) everyone was doing it, so anyone trying to bill themselves as a credible businessman would have been compelled to follow suit if he was hoping to court investors in his development projects, never mind tenants.

IIRC in the 1980's and 1990's Trump did a lot of work in the other direction as well, helping to desegregate areas after pursuing such things ceased to be a "kiss of death" in the world of finance.

3
If you are unaware of "low income housing" as a threat to suburbia being used as part of the southern strategy, the use of Cory Booker as the boogey man to implement it should really have spelled it out for you. Now why would he have specifically nominated Booker for that position, I wonder...

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

Oh like the black guy currently running HUD?

4
The Racist in Chief strikes again

Quote
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The “suburban housewife” will be voting for me. They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low income housing would invade their neighborhood. Biden would reinstall it, in a bigger form, with Corey Booker in charge!

You do realize that "sub-urban america" in a lot of the country is about 30 to 40% minorities depending on proximity to larger cities?

It's only that portion of rural america which often gets conflated with sub-urban america(as a statistical abstract) where you start hitting predominately white population centers.

6
Seattle's City Council just cut their police budget, despite wide spread community outcry NOT to do so, their (Black and female) Police Chief has resigned in protest. And the rioting continues in Seattle.

7
Trump:
Quote
"children are almost, I would almost say definitely, but almost immune from this disease."

Quote
At least 97,000 children tested positive for the coronavirus during the last two weeks of July, according to a new review of state-level data by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children's Hospital Association.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/11/900861372/at-least-97-000-children-tested-positive-for-coronavirus-in-last-2-weeks-of-july

"almost immune" != "immune"

He really should have used different words, but he has the best words, I know.

Children are unlikely to experience severe complications from Covid19 infections. But even "unlikely" doesn't mean they will escape complication free.
At what point do we recognize Trump as a complete failure and a pathological liar.

Cue the Trumpies saying "immune" doesn't really mean what we think it means.

8
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 11, 2020, 10:08:15 AM »
Now the valve masks are apparently good at protecting you up to N95 standards but don't protect those around you. I wonder if a work around might be to wear the valve mask to protect yourself and then wear another mask on top of it. I'm thinking I might try that. Just got some goggles too and the face shield too. If that seems excessive someone in my family got the full on gas mask. Went to Costco with it and it was fine.

The valve masks were singled out very early on as being ineffective at protecting others in news reports, although they did stop harping on it for some reason(lol politics, probably decided even that was better than nothing). As air leaving through the valve obviously would bypass the valve, and would not be filtered at all. IIRC, there was concern even then about the valve actually amplifying the ability to spread germs(as they'd be concentrated, and under pressure) even as some of those masks reduce the risk factors for the person wearing it.

Side note, but in my anecdotal experience people who wear masks tend to believe it makes them invulnerable and they will walk right up to you. Even my wife the other day walked closely by someone, and when I asked why she didn't respect the social distance she said she was wearing a mask, so shouldn't she have been safe? The answer was, of course, who knows? But as I explained, if she knew for certain the person she walked past had bubonic plague, she would have run in the other direction, mask or no mask. That's how I treat the situation, but unfortunately many believe that masks act as deflector shields and that keeping distance is now obsolete.

Which is the moral hazard being demonstrated, and one of the initial reasons why medical officials were initially advising against wearing masks for the general public. It would give them a false sense of security and result in them placing themselves in positions where their improperly worn mask would result in either their getting infected, or infecting others....

9
General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: August 11, 2020, 02:02:52 AM »
So I guess the bodycam footage from one of the officers leaked, by someone using a smartphone to record the screen of a device that had the recording and passing it on to the dailymail over in the UK.

It has subsequently resulted in a judge ordering the official public release of the footage, but I'm not finding the official version just yet.

It changes the context of the situation a fair bit, getting a murder conviction off of that is going to be hard.

10
Quote
Well, look… the Obama campaign spied on our campaign, and they’ve been caught, alright?  And now let’s see what happens to them.
He does have a lot of verbal gaffes, though, doesn't he?  At some point we have to ask... how badly is he deteriorating?  Yes, his mangled sentence structure is clearly just an attempt to appeal to his base by speaking to them in ways he thinks they would be most comfortable with (seems a little convenient, but OK) but how many stupid things does he have to say before giving his supporters pause?

The Obama Admin did spy on his campaign, and his transition team as well. The DoJ report is allegedly going to drop sometime this month, we'll see if he felt like he was able to indict anyone.

Knowing people did a thing is not the thing as being able to know their intent, which can determine criminality on many of these things.

11
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 11, 2020, 12:22:13 AM »
It assumes a 6 week shutdown would bring the numbers down to nearly non-existent.
No, it doesn't.  It 'assumes' that the rates can be lowered to a point where contact tracing is possible, where providing test results can actually keep up with the tests being administered, and where the flare ups mean dozens of deaths instead of thousands.

The daily death rate in the USA is 20 times (per capita) that of Canada.  The number of active cases is roughly 40 times (per capita) that of Canada.  This doesn't mean that Canada's numbers are nearly non-existent - but they are manageable.  And they are such a level that front line workers don't have an existential fear of death by just showing up at work.

To fully reopen, you need it near zero, not just "managable" or "contact traceable" which we've already seen fail utterly time and again in communities that had it under control for weeks on end and them suddenly boom they have several dozen cases pop up in just a couple weeks--in an area that wasn't even fully open as it was.

Just watched it happen here in Idaho, the eastern part of the state has had its issues, where it would spike, then drop to a slow trickle where contact tracing should have been able to manage easily, and then suddenly we get hit with a huge wave of infections before it drops off again, rinse and repeat.

I'm pretty sure a large part of the problem we're seeing where I'm at is people going on vacation, bringing it with them, and leaving it behind them after they're gone.

Sorry, but anecdotally based on people I've talked to, I just don't see people having the patience for another shutdown, so unless you're ready to declare martial law, it isn't happening. And frankly, the fatality rate for Covid19 doesn't warrant that.

12
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 10, 2020, 03:19:30 PM »
The problem with the statement is the 'could make' while not address the economic impact of such a six week national shutdown that 'could make' the over all impact on people lives worse then the virus. This is not a either or problem but one that requires people to behave reasonably and as if they are 'their brothers keeper' as well.
In the associated NYTimes editorial, Kaskari spelled out his reasoning, and I don't think it is particularly controversial: if the case load is not significantly reduced, the long term economic effects will be worse, his point being that "flattening the curve" to 50,000 daily cases and 1000 daily deaths for months on end will dwarf the economic impact of localized shutdowns and travel restrictions, especially not least because at that level large spikes become inevitable.

Quote
If we aren’t willing to take this action, millions more cases with many more deaths are likely before a vaccine might be available. In addition, the economic recovery will be much slower, with far more business failures and high unemployment for the next year or two. The path of the virus will determine the path of the economy. There won’t be a robust economic recovery until we get control of the virus.

If we do this aggressively, the testing and tracing capacity we’ve built will support reopening the economy as other countries have done, allow children to go back to school and citizens to vote in person in November. All of this will lead to a stronger, faster economic recovery, moving people from unemployment to work.

So many problems with that pitch.

It assumes a 6 week shutdown would bring the numbers down to nearly non-existent. I highly doubt that will happen in the manner they want it to, especially in the United States. China appears to have had problems with getting their own shutdowns to work in such a manner, Covid19 still haunts them even with very intense violations of privacy and other rights we enjoy in the US.

There are no good solutions at this point, there have been no good solutions for the United States once the virus made its way within our borders and escaped what quarantine efforts existed.

All a 6 week nationwide shutdown would do is lower the infection rate, not eliminate it. After which we're still dealing with limited openings until a vaccine is developed or efforts to contain it just end.

14
General Comments / Re: NRA getting sued
« on: August 09, 2020, 11:59:37 AM »
How much did Saudi Arabia donate to the Clinton Foundation after she lost the election?

Well, if you believe the Clinton Foundation website, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million, but less than $25 Million in 2019. So they're still donating. Australia and Norway also remain as donors in the same tier.

The Netherlands and Kuwait are in the $5 million to $10 million bracket.

But other reporting does indicate their revenues dropped by over half in 2017, and have continued to drop since then. Of course, to further confuse things, the Clinton has stood up at least two other smaller charities in the interim so the new charities are likely siphoning some of the donations away towards themselves. (And of course, allows for the Clinton's to collect more pay for "services rendered" to those organizations)

15
Also missed this one yesterday:
https://www.kptv.com/news/mayor-wheeler-on-rioters-setting-fire-at-portland-police-building-you-are-attempting-to-commit/article_8e01541e-d839-11ea-8736-4b746b521476.html
Quote
Mayor Ted Wheeler had strong words for rioters who blocked exits and started a fire at the Portland Police Bureau’s East Precinct building.

“When you commit arson with an accelerant in an attempt to burn down a building that is occupied by people who you have intentionally trapped inside, you are not demonstrating, you are attempting to commit murder,” Wheeler said during an online press conference Thursday.

16
As a mostly lurker have to say that the whole hearted support of beating the living *censored* out of people for being in a general area around others who allegedly did bad things is not something I expected out of you Daemon.

I guess I need to go digging. There was a certain street preacher who had an unpleasant encounter with those "peaceful protesters" about a month ago. He's chained himself to a traffic light pole prior to their arrival. Never saw the footage of him getting taken off the pole, but they subsequently knocked him unconscious. then carried him into a side-alley where one of the women involved asked if she could kick his face in.

But yeah, it was only the Feds who were out of control. I've already commented on that Navy Veteran, I think there is more to the story than what the press has covered and I'm withholding judgement until the IG report comes back on that.

17
Quote
These protests have a "violent core" attached to it that have been from present from the start, and the presence of the Feds simply provided them a target to focus their attention on, rather actually escalate the violence in and of themselves...

The Portland protests aren't about Black Lives Matter, and never really have been, although many of its participants like to think they were. The Portland Protests are all about waging psychological warfare.

This exemplifies what is pissing us off, Deamon.

First you talk about the "violent core," which by implication is a minority of the protesters.  (If it were a majority, it wouldn't be a "core" now, would it? ;) )

Then you make a blanket statement that "the Portland protests aren't about..." based on what this core minority does.

This is what we mean when we say that you are blaming the entire protest on the actions of a minority.  Suddenly the intentions of everyone outside of the "violent core" is subsumed by this "core."

Have you ever considered that the protests are really all about Black Lives Matters and justice for all Americans, not just the ones that look right, and it is this "violent core" that is exploiting it to wage their psychological warfare against the will of the majority? ;)

 ::)

I'm sure the sudden increase in protesters after the reports about "federal stormtroopers" and "secret police" operating in Portland were entirely in response to people being concerned about Police unjustly profiling and killing black men while in custody, and had nothing to do with a psychological operation that had been running in the city for the 6 weeks prior to that. I mean, that totally explains why all of those people suddenly returned to the woodwork after "the federal issue" had been resolved by the Governor agreeing to send in the state police.

18
That's got to be the most successful destabilization campaign in history, and all perpetrated by twenty year olds who work in fast food and retail. The CIA must be jealous.

Plenty of 30 and 40-somethings getting arrested alongside them.

19
The people with the laser pointers were obviously not peaceful protesters. How many people were shining laser pointers? How many got physical with her? This is at the heart of the appropriate phrase "mostly peaceful protesters". The video on NY Post shows about 6-7 people confronting her. We don't see whether they are alone, or if they broke off from 500 people marching and singing. I don't know why you think that anyone is making the argument that protesters in Portland are 100% nonviolent.

I think TheDeamon's point is something to the tune of people here accusing Trump of escalating a peaceful protest into being violent, whereas his point is that it was already violent to an extent which according to him hasn't appreciably changed as a result of DHS presence. I don't have a factual thing to add to any of this, other than it sounds super-fishy to me to argue that it's Trump's fault that some violence has ensued. I don't know, I guess it's possible, but somehow it doesn't ring true.

Pretty much this.

These protests have a "violent core" attached to it that have been from present from the start, and the presence of the Feds simply provided them a target to focus their attention on, rather actually escalate the violence in and of themselves.

That "violent core" wants a police response. Which should be plainly obvious now that once command of the Federal Building's security was given to the state, the protesters started targeting the Portland Police Department and their union/association buildings and once again resuming the practice of "gradual escalation" over the course of the night until the Police come in to clear them out.

So they can then try to get footage of "police brutality" to try to get more people to rally to their cause.

The Portland protests aren't about Black Lives Matter, and never really have been, although many of its participants like to think they were. The Portland Protests are all about waging psychological warfare.

20
The people with the laser pointers were obviously not peaceful protesters. How many people were shining laser pointers? How many got physical with her?

At the 23 second mark, I could count 4 different laser pointers being directed towards her vicinity. Of course, video being what it is, and their tendency to shift them around quickly, it could be after images. There definitely were at least three pointers in use just based on the angles and some other factors I was seeing in the mix. (One of the people with a laser is either short, or was inside a car)

Quote
This is at the heart of the appropriate phrase "mostly peaceful protesters". The video on NY Post shows about 6-7 people confronting her. We don't see whether they are alone, or if they broke off from 500 people marching and singing. I don't know why you think that anyone is making the argument that protesters in Portland are 100% nonviolent.

At least with the twitter video, there is enough sound present that doesn't seem to line up with what's happening at the door to suggest that a second group was gathered on/along the street but otherwise staying on public right-of-ways, but as I haven't seen video of that crowd, can't begin to even guess. Presumably there are at least 4, the cameraperson, and the ones with the laser pointers.

21
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1290739667357376531

timestamp 1:09

113 out of 277 injuries sustained by DHS Personnel in Portland have been eye injuries.

22
"Peaceful" Portland protesters find a Portland woman outside her house wearing a Nazi armband. Shine bright lights and laser pointers into her eyes while also physically confronting her. Not going to support her, but it's pretty ironic that the same people who take issue with "federal snatchers" don't see a problem with this:

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1291322964512837633

Of course, that only happened after the Portland Police removed them from the vicinity of their East Precinct building, where those "protesters" set a fire at the entry door to the building.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1291316396236963842

Night of August 5/morning of August 6
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261071

23
General Comments / Re: Is Our Partisanship a Threat to Our Democracy?
« on: August 06, 2020, 02:23:03 AM »
Speaking of partisanship, got a laugh out of this:
The (New York Times) YouTube video goes into detail on "the keys" and in the course of it, the good professor admits to being a Democrat and how hard it can be to keep partisanship out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/05/professor-allan-lichtman-predicts-joe-biden-beat-donald-trump/3304680001/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp_Uuz9k7Os

Of his 13 keys, he scored 6 keys in favor of Trump, and 7 in favor of Biden. As such, he's called it for Biden.

But the problem is, in this cycle, things are a bit more ambiguous.

6 keys are clearly indicating Trump. But as for the other 7?
For the ones where Trump was scored as "false":
1) "Midterm gains" - Scored as false, as the Democrats gained seats, not the republicans, so clearly a pro-Biden marker.
2) "Strong Short Term economy" - He scored that as false, because of the economic disruption form Covid.
3) "Strong Long Term economy" - He scored that as false, because of the economic disruption from Covid.
4) "No Social Unrest" - Obviously that does support Biden.
5) "No scandal" - He scored this as false. But the "trump voters" on the other hand may disagree, particularly as it looks like what became the Mueller Investigation is looking to be poised to become ObamaGate in the eyes of most Trump voters, even if the dems disagree. Likewise for most Trump voters, the impeachment was only a scandal in regards to how the Democrats conducted themselves.
6) "Major foreign/Military success" - He scored this as false. "Trump voters" may disagree on that.
7) "Charismatic incumbent" - Scored as false. I'll give him a pass on his rationale, given Trump's difficulty even reaching 50% approval and retaining it. Of course, this could arguably be "split" as he also scored "true" for "uncharismatic opponent" in Trump's favor. A Charismatic candidate is likely to have a better "connection" with their base, and thus better turnout than an opponent who lacks any meaningful charisma...

So of those 7 markers that he said were false, I'll readily agree with 3 of them(1, 4, and 7).
ISIS/ISIL and the renegotiated NAFTA aside, I guess I'll grant #6, but there is an asterisk to attach to that one.
Given the Keystone cops routine the Administration has ongoing, I'll leave #5 as mostly valid.

That gets Biden to 5 keys to Trump's 6. Which puts things entirely in the context of the economy, and the economic circumstances as a result of Covid are just so outside of the norm that I don't think any real definitive predictions can be made. So I'm inclined to split the result, if only because polling in the past has indicated people think Trump would be better able to facilitate a recovery... But the wildcard in the mix is Covid need to reach a point where a recovery can begin to properly start. Something which Trump obviously isn't helping with, but then, nobody seems to have managed to pull off a safe and effective reopening as of yet, including China with their totalitarian controls in place. So it is hard to objectively hold Trump accountable for that. So my own scoring using his criteria ends up as a Trump 7, Biden 6 decision at this time. So it indicates a Trump win, not a Biden one.

24
General Comments / Re: Is Our Partisanship a Threat to Our Democracy?
« on: August 06, 2020, 01:41:22 AM »
Are we approaching a point where we will throw away our rights by denying them of our political opponents?  :o

We're beyond it in many respects.

Historians have previously claimed the Revolutionary War started with less than 30% of the population in support of independence. (but also with less than 30% in support of the crown)

The Civil War was also a case where you had less than 30% of (free) people in the Confederacy pushing for forming the Confederacy.

Creating a highly polarized population is playing with fire. And we're checking off basically all of the check boxes for what triggered both the American Revolution, the Civil War, and some would say the French Revolution as well(although that didn't happen here).

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a wild ride for the next year at least. If we avoid open warfare (outside of Portland and a short list of other uber-Leftist enclaves) I'll be amazed.

25
Your commitment to collective punishment is strong. It reminds me of Israel running roughshod over noncombatants in Gaza because they won't overwhelm the terrorists and stop them from firing rockets. Could that truck marked with ambulance markings have terrorists in it? Maybe. But you still don't blow it up with a drone. In large part because of "optics". Are those equivalent? Not at all. Lethal force is different than less than lethal options. But it is still a reckless disregard and makes you look like crap, and it is on the same spectrum. Is it 100% fair? No, it isn't. But if you want to take the moral high ground, you accept the tactical disadvantage and live with it. What's the best thing to do? Address the problems that have peaceful protesters in the street, you take away the human shields for people who really just want revolution against the state. Oregon tried to fake it, and leave loopholes for cops to keep doing what they've been doing all along. It was transparent and infuriating to those demanding real reform.

How is telling people that an assembly has become a public safety risk and that for that reason they must relocate a punnishment?

The "punishment" you're talking about is when the Crowd Control Munitions were employed, which pretty consistently came with 5+ minutes work of advanced warnings in most cases.

You have a 1st amendment right to protest, but you do not have a 1st amendment right to endanger public safety. And when you start disobeying lawful orders from a LEO, well, I'm not going to be very sympathetic about what happens next if it is happening in the context of other parties being violent towards those same LEOs.

Even for the Non-violent old-school protesters, being arrested and/or detained was a badge of honor, although that isn't supposed to involve you getting arrested alongside a guy that was throwing rocks or launching explosives at said officers.

26
Quote
Up to this point it has only been FPS and the Portland Police defending the building. At this point "The Federal Storm Troopers" are brought in.

So up until July 3 or so, the violence consisted of graffiti, broken windows and damaged fences, from what I can see.

And according to this site, Federal Officers confronted the crowds on July 1.  So they were already there on July 3.

First off, the Federal Protective Service are the guys that are normally charged with protecting Federal Buildings. It has an organizational history going back to 1790, they're only a year younger than the US Marshall's service, although they've gone through multiple name changes over the years as they moved between various administrative departments. Without regard to who PotUS is, absent a presidential directive directing otherwise, what the FPS did up to that point is very likely to have happened without regard to who PotUS is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Protective_Service_(United_States)

This also is where timeline confusion comes into play. Is July 1 talking about the night of June 30/July 1, or the night of July 1/July 2?

And I love how that article leads with the peaceful protesters starting July by gathering around the Elk Statue. The very same statue they burned that very same evening and damaged its base badly enough that Portland removed the statue the next morning out of concerns it might fall on someone(that and it needed cleaning/restoration after being vandalized and burned anyway).

Quote
7/01/2020
Violent anarchists graffitied new plywood covering the windows at the Hatfield Courthouse and ripped down plywood on the other side of the building.
...
07/02/2020
Violent anarchists broke a front window to the Hatfield Courthouse and attempted to enter the building.
Violent anarchists refused orders to vacate the Hatfield Courthouse area, and instead launched fireworks and threw objects at officers, while attempting to cause eye damage with lasers. One explosive firework was shot into the courthouse.
FPS law enforcement officers were forced to utilized crowd control measures for safety.

Based on the Portland Police reports, the 07/03 report from this summary(not quoted here) would be for the morniing of the third, not the evening. So the 07/02 entry is the morning of the 2nd, and the 07/01 entry is the morning of the first.

So for the FPS their first "significant confrontation" with the crowd was the morning of the 2nd, as reported by DHS. Sadly the PPB doesn't have a police report covering that night to corroborate. But from the DHS version, the officers didn't do anything until someone started to forcibly enter the building, and again when someone started shooting fireworks into their building. Which would match up with:

Quote
Then federal law enforcement officers began appearing at the daily protests.

At first, activists viewed the agents as a minor nuisance compared to officers from the Portland Police Bureau, who for many nights before had used impact munitions and tear gas to drive demonstrators away from the building that houses the county jail and out of downtown Portland."

Because they only came out when the building they were defending was being attacked, rather than simply being defaced. And as per the DHS version of things, the building didn't start getting attacked in earnest until the morning of July 2nd.

Then on July 3rd, as per DHS:
Quote
Violent Anarchists broke the front window of the Hatfield U.S. Courthouse and shot fireworks into the building.
Violent anarchists firebombed the building. Federal law enforcement extinguished the fire.
So again, the building was attacked, not just vandalized. So again, as per their SOP, they came out to respond to the attack. But that's now two nights in a row that FPS came out... And you did notice the entry about "Firebombed" on the 3rd? The PPD also reflected that with this from the night of the 2nd/morning of the 3rd:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250945
Quote
Around 12:46 a.m., demonstrators returned to the west side of the federal courthouse. Once again, demonstrators were warned by the sound truck that the riot declaration was still in effect and they needed to leave the area. At this time, demonstrators started launching mortars towards the federal courthouse and a fire erupted inside of the building where the glass doors had been broken.

Because of this immediate life safety issue, officers once again began to disperse the crowd. As they dispersed the crowd, demonstrators continued to throw rocks, cans, and commercial grade fireworks and mortars towards officers. Because of the violent nature of the demonstrators while officers cleared the area, crowd control munitions were used and several arrests were made.

So as far as I can see, the "Federal agents turning up to protect Federal Buildings from being set on fire" (which seems to have happened with fireworks on July 4, if I read this correctly--what a surprise! ;) ), actually had not happened until AFTER they showed up.  Which means the Federal agents were not a reaction to up-ticking violence, but most likely vice-versa.

So CBP forces turning up to support the FPS agents on the 4th somehow magically made the fire on the 3rd not happen, and also retroactively made the breach on the 2nd and the fireworks being shot into the building not happen on that night as well?

But getting back to your linked article:
Quote
But by July 4, that mission shifted as federal officers cleared demonstrators blocks away from federal property. Over the next two weeks, their tactics became increasingly aggressive.

Well, more manpower being available means more aggressive tactics are available as you are capable of being able to do more(you can "counterattack" and defend at the same time), and one of the best defensive actions you can take is move the crowd far enough away that they cannot endanger the building further... By lauching more fireworks into windows they just broke. And again, of course, those Federal agents only came out and did so after somebody attacked the Federal Building... odd that. But that does make for three nights in a row where Federal Agents have come out to disrupt crowds... That happened to attack Federal property rather than simply spray paint it.

Don't believe me? Even the PPB says the Federal Building was being attacked on the morning of the 4th, I've already quoted them on this matter. So I'll just give you the link.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250947

On the night of July 4, morning of July 5th, another attack with unsurprising Federal response:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250952
Quote
At 10:48 p.m., demonstrators continued launching fireworks and projectiles at the Federal Courthouse. Because of this, several windows were broken and fireworks and projectiles entered the Federal Courthouse building.
...
Between 1 and 2 a.m., some individuals launched fireworks, smoke bombs, and mortars at and near the Federal Courthouse. Crowd control munitions were deployed in the area.

The crowd continued to remain in the area and engage in riotous behaviors involving fireworks, lit fires, smashing windows, and targeting officers with dangerous projectiles.

So nightly attacks on the Federal building, with corresponding nightly responses, odd how that works. Do we really need to rehash this or do you want to ignore the matter that the Feds were responding to escalations rather than doing escalating?

And looking at the twitter feed for the PPB, it seems to be mostly peaceful around the federal building atm, but they're trying to wreck the Portland Police Association building again, they've declared a riot.

27
Found this while browsing back looking for the Mayor's "brave appearance" at the protest. Decided to link to those images from twitter in the context of the PPB report from that evening.
Last night looks to have been rather eventful in Portland. Broken windows at the Federal Building, and attempted arson of a government building among other things going by Twitter. Portland Police haven't posted their police log version of things, but given that all of what happened involved the feds, they may now be under pressure from their Mayor to not report on that stuff... Or there simply is that much to report on that it's taking longer than usual to compile, after their Mayor banned on-site Federal co-ordinators with the PPB, so the information flow is being hampered.

Edit: It's missing from the index for their news feed on their own site, but could find it via twitter:

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251017
Quote
...
Around 1:00 a.m., some people associated with the group opened a fire hydrant at Southwest 3rd Avenue and Southwest Taylor Street and added soap to the water causing a hazard downtown. Some other people downtown set several small fires while other people vandalized and spray painted both city, federal, and private property. At 1:27 a.m., another fire was lit outside an exit door on the south side of the Federal Courthouse and the group successfully tore off a large piece of plywood protecting some glass doors on the west side of the building.
TimeStamp 01:37:55
https://twitter.com/USAO_OR/status/1290418202820788224/photo/1
TimeStamp 01:44:53
https://twitter.com/USAO_OR/status/1290418202820788224/photo/2
Quote
Quote
At 1:45 a.m., Federal Police Officers once again were forced to disperse the crowd west from the building. During the dispersal, a large fire was started in the middle of Lownsdale Square.
TimeStamp 01:46:12
https://twitter.com/USAO_OR/status/1290418202820788224/photo/3

And looking back on that, looks like I also double posted the police report of that night, I'll have to go find the July 22nd/23rd report now to account for the Mayor's visit, as I incorrectly attributed the previous night to "his night" on the scene.

edit: Correct police report for events from the night of his visit:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251022

28
Wow the first 14 posts of this nature failed to make your point, but adding this one more just convinced everyone! Nice Job!

The July 22nd incident they just shed light on demonstrates "the power of optics" very well however.

The only people among the protesters who "knew what happened" could likely be counted on one hand.

Meanwhile, for everyone else, they just saw some protesters tearing down plywood and damaging a glass window that was likely going to be replaced anyway. "Funny ha ha!"

What they didn't see was the explosive device being placed inside the Federal Building. And thus everyone else can claim the police response was "disproportionate and inappropriate" for the situation they were aware of because they were unable to see what triggered the response.

29
July 22nd:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1290418202820788224
People removing plywood over a window, the horror!:
https://twitter.com/USAO_OR/status/1290418202820788224/photo/1

7 minutes later, the window has a hole in it now, and someone is doing something:
https://twitter.com/USAO_OR/status/1290418202820788224/photo/2

90 seconds later, federal agents are coming out the broken window in pursuit, as a fire appears to burn inside the room?
https://twitter.com/USAO_OR/status/1290418202820788224/photo/3

https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/portland-man-charged-assaulting-deputy-us-marshal-explosive-device-during-courthouse
Quote
PORTLAND, Ore.—U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams announced today that Isaiah Jason Maza, Jr., 18, of Portland, has been charged by criminal complaint with assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon and willfully damaging government property during protests at the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse on July 22, 2020.

According to court documents, in the early morning hours of July 22, 2020, a group of individuals gathered in an exterior entryway of the Hatfield Federal Courthouse. Several members of the group, including Maza, began removing plywood attached to the front of the building to protect its damaged glass façade. After the group successfully removed the plywood sheeting, Maza made multiple attempts to kick in the window, struck it with a metal object, and repeatedly pounded on it with what appeared to be a hammer.

Shortly thereafter, a number of people successfully removed the entire wooden structure protecting the courthouse entryway and an unknown individual broke one of the windows. After this breach, Maza walked toward the building carrying a cylindrical object. Maza then appeared to light a fuse connected to the object and place it inside the broken window. A short time later, the object exploded in close proximity to law enforcement officers exiting the building through the broken window. A deputy U.S. Marshal sustained injuries to both his legs as a result of the blast.

and putting the lie to the claim that the Feds were gone by Thursday:
Quote
On July 31, 2020, deputy U.S. Marshals spotted Maza less than one block from the courthouse. Maza ran from the deputy marshals who pursued him several blocks by foot before catching and arresting him.

Sounds like "the snatchers" were still running around in the 31st.

30
"Peaceful protesting" continues in Portland:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251067

Quote
On Monday, August 3, 2020, multiple events took place. At about 9:00p.m., vehicles were used by protesters to block traffic in downtown Portland around Lownsdale Square park. However, the gathering was mostly peaceful and PPB did not interact with the crowd other than two previously released incidents. See other releases for further information on those.

...

Over the course of hours, some members of the group began throwing objects at officers and flashing laser pointers, bright flashlights, and strobe lights in the officers' eyes. Officers instructed people to stay off the property. The same instructions were made via a loudspeaker and over PPB's Twitter account.

At about 11:30p.m., members of the crowd entered the Kelly Building property. Officers made an arrest. The officers making the arrests had numerous items thrown at them.

At 11:46p.m., due to criminal activity, the gathering was declared an unlawful assembly. After numerous instructions via loudspeaker, officers moved the crowd to the east. During the dispersal, the officers had paint balloons and other objects thrown at them. One officer was punched. Another was injured in the arm by a protester swinging a stick or baton. Another arrest was made. After moving the crowd several blocks, officers deployed inert smoke to allow officers to safely disengage.


https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251066
Quote
On Monday, August 3, 2020 at about 10:00p.m., Portland Police received a report of a suspect pointing a handgun at people in the area of Southwest 4th Avenue and Southwest Taylor Street. Oregon State Police were in the area and attempted to arrest the suspect. A hostile crowd surrounded the law enforcement officers, so they requested help from the nearest crowd control unit. Oregon State Police Mobile Response Team (MRT) responded and secured the area to allow the investigators to safely make the arrest. As soon as the suspect was transported away from the scene, the MRT began to disengage. Objects were thrown at the MRT members, including one glass object that struck a Trooper in the head and shattered. Munitions were deployed to defend the retreating MRT unit. Three Troopers suffered minor injuries during the event.

A suspect, a juvenile male, was detained and a realistic looking replica firearm, metal knuckles, and a knife were seized as evidence (photos). The investigation is continuing.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251065
Quote
Officers have determined that the stabbing took place in Lownsdale Square park when an adult female suspect entered the park taking photos and/or video. An argument ensued between the female and other people in the park. During the argument, the female produced a knife and stabbed another female in the chest. The victim is being treated at a hospital and her injuries appear to be non-life threatening.
...
During the initial response, officers encountered a hostile crowd and additional police resources were summoned to try to conduct an investigation. Officers initially located the knife used in the stabbing, however as the officers were trying to secure a crime scene someone picked it up and ran off with it. Officers were unable to safely conduct an investigation due to the hostile crowd, and supervisors made the decision to disengage. As the knife is evidence, it should be returned to police custody.

But hey, at least the Federal Storm Troopers aren't getting involved in Portland anymore.

31
And I could quibble more that the point made earlier in the thread isn't that the protesters reacted violently to any actual offensive action taken by federal agents, but rather than the actual fact of them arriving was enough to incite violence.

The "funny thing" is the closest that came to "offensive action" were the street grabs. Everything else was defensive. Don't want to be gassed or hit with other crowd control munitions? Don't attack/threaten the Federal Building, or anywhere near the vicinity of anyone who is.

Even worse for the counter-claim on this.  The protester activities before the CBP officers turned up was essentially the same as their behavior after. And it's very odd that the protester behavior "took it up to 11" on the very same night that CBP turned up to assist FPS. That doesn't strike me as a response to CBP turning up, it seems more like they escalated expecting the same response as the night before, only found a stronger counter-response than they expected.

32
July 4th/morning of the 5th, as I forgot that in the previous:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250952
Quote
At 10:48 p.m., demonstrators continued launching fireworks and projectiles at the Federal Courthouse. Because of this, several windows were broken and fireworks and projectiles entered the Federal Courthouse building.

To protect the life and safety of personnel both inside and outside of the Federal Court House, just after 11 p.m., a riot was declared. Officers began dispersing the crowd moving demonstrators from the closed area of Southwest Broadway to Southwest 1st Avenue, Southwest Columbia to Southwest Yamhill Street.

As officers dispersed the crowd, demonstrators threw bricks, mortars, M-80s, and other flammables towards them. To defend themselves from serious injury, officers used crowd control munitions and tear gas at this time. Lasers were directed at Officer's eyes, which is unlawful.
Despite having moved from the closed area, demonstrators began to trickle back to Southwest 3rd Avenue, starting a large bonfire in the middle of Southwest 3rd Avenue and Southwest Main Street 1 a.m.

During the dispersal, numerous business windows were shattered by members of the crowd. Officers made several arrests, including one at Southwest Main Street and Broadway where a male fought with officers. Officers were able to get him in custody and recovered an illegally possessed loaded firearm and a knife.

Between 1 and 2 a.m., some individuals launched fireworks, smoke bombs, and mortars at and near the Federal Courthouse. Crowd control munitions were deployed in the area.

The crowd continued to remain in the area and engage in riotous behaviors involving fireworks, lit fires, smashing windows, and targeting officers with dangerous projectiles. The closure area was extended to I-405 and Southwest 1 Avenue and Columbia to Burnside Streets.

Several Officers sustained injuries throughout the night, mostly due to mortars and fireworks thrown at them by members of the crowd, which exploded on or near them.

Most of the crowd was dispersed by 4:30 a.m.

33
The "Federal Stormtroopers" didn't turn up until those "peaceful protesters" had broken into the federal building, after several nights of attempts being foiled by the Portland Police, and started causing property damage inside the building.

So you're saying Federal agents turning up to protect Federal Buildings from being set on fire, something which had already happened, would cause things to escalate to people trying to burn down the Federal Building... Something they were already doing?

OK.  What day was it when the protesters broke into the Federal building, which building was it, and what damage did they do to it?  I'm curious to review the timeline of this.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/07/16/acting-secretary-wolf-condemns-rampant-long-lasting-violence-portland

Gives a biased overview of things up to mid-July.

highlights from the Federal perspective(I'm ignoring damage to fencing surrounding federal facilities, which can also be defined as damage to Government Property/Trespass, likewise ignoring graffiti claims):
Quote
06/08/2020
Violent anarchists broke a window at the Hatfield Courthouse while pelting the building with objects.
...
06/10/2020
...
Violent anarchists attempted to remove wooden barriers from a window on the Hatfield Courthouse.
...
06/13/2020
Violent anarchists destroyed the card reader at the Hatfield Courthouse by ripping it off its mount.
Violent anarchists destroyed the fence at the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists threw metal pipes at the Hatfield Courthouse, causing Portland Police to issue a disbursal warning for unlawful assembly.
...
06/25/2020
Violent anarchists vandalized an FPS camera at the Hatfield Courthouse. (FPS = Federal Protective Service)
...
06/30/2020
Violent anarchists ripped down plywood covering the windows at the Edith Green-Wenell Wyatt Building, before breaking the windows.
...
7/01/2020
Violent anarchists graffitied new plywood covering the windows at the Hatfield Courthouse and ripped down plywood on the other side of the building.
...
07/02/2020
Violent anarchists broke a front window to the Hatfield Courthouse and attempted to enter the building.
Violent anarchists refused orders to vacate the Hatfield Courthouse area, and instead launched fireworks and threw objects at officers, while attempting to cause eye damage with lasers. One explosive firework was shot into the courthouse.
FPS law enforcement officers were forced to utilized crowd control measures for safety.
07/03/2020
After ongoing riots around the Hatfield Courthouse, crowds were dispersed only to make a return later into the night.
Violent Anarchists broke the front window of the Hatfield U.S. Courthouse and shot fireworks into the building.
Violent anarchists firebombed the building. Federal law enforcement extinguished the fire.

Up to this point it has only been FPS and the Portland Police defending the building. At this point "The Federal Storm Troopers" are brought in.

Quote
07/04/2020
Around 1,000 violent anarchists spray painted, threw rocks, and shot fireworks (including mortar style fireworks) at the Hatfield Courthouse. They also destroyed a security camera at the facility.
A CBP team supporting FPS at the courthouse arrested suspects from the graffiti and camera vandalism incidents.
The mob continued to throw rocks and paint-filled balloons, while attempting to breach the doors.
Teams were forced to utilize crowd control measures for safety.
Multiple individuals were seen carrying rifles, including the driver of a vehicle who attempted to strike a Portland Police Bureau officer with his car in front of the Hatfield Courthouse.

Portland Police version of some of these events:
The night of July 2nd:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250945
Quote
Around 11:42 p.m., Federal officers inside the courthouse came outside to protect the integrity of their building. While federal officers were outside, demonstrators began launching projectiles at the officers with sling shots. These projectiles included large rocks, full cans, and bottles. Demonstrators also threw lit commercial grade fireworks, which landed inside the broken glass doors of the federal courthouse. Simultaneously, demonstrators began setting a fire nearby on Southwest Main Street.

The sound truck made an admonishment telling demonstrators that they must cease the criminal activity of throwing projectiles and fireworks. Demonstrators were also warned if they did not cease the illegal actions and back away from the building, they would be subject to use of force, to include crowd control munitions. Even though the demonstrators were given several warnings by the sound truck, their criminal actions continued.

To protect the life and safety of personnel both inside and outside of the Federal Court House, at 11:52 p.m., a riot was declared. The sound truck admonished the crowd letting demonstrators know a riot had been declared. Demonstrators were told they needed to leave the area to the south and west immediately. If demonstrators did not leave the area, they were subject to tear gas and crowd control munitions. The sound truck gave this admonishment several times, however, demonstrators continued to stay in the area.

Officers began dispersing the crowd in an effort to move them from the immediate area. During this lawful action, the demonstrators were very hostile and violent towards officers. An open pocket knife was thrown at an officer, coming within inches from striking them. Demonstrators continued to throw large rocks and full cans, as well as shot off commercial grade fireworks towards officers. During this time, several arrests were made. Once demonstrators were at Southwest 6th Avenue and Southwest Main Street, officers disengaged the crowd.

Around 12:46 a.m., demonstrators returned to the west side of the federal courthouse. Once again, demonstrators were warned by the sound truck that the riot declaration was still in effect and they needed to leave the area. At this time, demonstrators started launching mortars towards the federal courthouse and a fire erupted inside of the building where the glass doors had been broken.

Because of this immediate life safety issue, officers once again began to disperse the crowd. As they dispersed the crowd, demonstrators continued to throw rocks, cans, and commercial grade fireworks and mortars towards officers. Because of the violent nature of the demonstrators while officers cleared the area, crowd control munitions were used and several arrests were made. As officers began to disengage the crowd at Southwest Main Street and Southwest Broadway Avenue, commercial grade fireworks were once again thrown at officers.

Several demonstrators trickled back in to the Lownsdale and Chapman Park but eventually dispersed over the next several hours.

No CS gas was used by Portland Police Bureau officers during this event.


The night of July 3rd, morning of July 4th:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250947
Quote
Around 12:53 a.m., a few of the demonstrators began throwing rocks at the Federal Courthouse building. Some of these rocks broke windows. At around 1:30 a.m., some demonstrators began shooting the commercial grade fireworks towards the Justice Center. Many demonstrators were carrying makeshift shields and sticks.
...

In on-going efforts to de-escalate the situation, PPB members stayed away from the demonstrators, as there was not an identified life safety risk.

At about 4 a.m., the Federal courthouse was attacked. A riot was declared and efforts were made to get the crowd to disperse, including numerous warnings to leave the area or be subject to arrest or force.

PPB did not deploy CS gas at any point during the overnight demonstrations.

Also for reference they "burned the elk" on the night of July 1st.

34
If, for instance, I want to walk down the street to the post office to mail a letter, and there's a mob of people who hate the mail system, and you tell me that if I walk to the post office it will rile them up, I do not think there is any world in which I am *responsible* in any way for them throwing bottles if I decide to go anyhow.
If you see the angry mod, and think that by walking to the post office at that time there is a significantly increased chance of triggering an escalation that might lead to people getting hurt, or a building getting torched, then yes, you would be absolutely responsible for the resulting violence if it were to escalate.  Those are foreseeable results of actions you chose to take.

Funny that you seem to be using almost the completely inverted argument many of us have been making about the "Peaceful protesters" showing up to a protest during a time frame where they knew mayhem and violence was very likely to occur... And "a reasonable person" should be able to realize that by being there as "a peaceful protester" they're helping provide cover for said mayhem makers.

35
Quote
No, the only reasonable expectation was a re-escalation of the protests, maybe helped by a few questionable arrests of people off the street.

WS, that is not only not the only reasonable explanation, but it's not consistent with Trump's playbook. Other explanations could be (a) executive overreaction, (b) error about how to resolve the issue, (c) trying to look tough, (d) making a statement to R voters that order will be maintained. These are all more plausible and probable than your explanation, which while still possible is sort of up there with Obama faking his birth certificate. Sure, it's possible, even something someone might do, but is defaulting to a worst case scenario interpretation seemingly arbitrarily. The options I just offered are pretty typical sorts of political reasons, and all would account for it, and none require the motive of deliberately agitating protesters. You may be right, but I think it's very unlikely. Only if you think of Trump as Cobra Commander or something would you expect that any action he takes can surely be chalked up as some kind of criminal scheme.

Which isn't to mention the absolute furor that would have erupted among Republicans if Trump "stood aside and did nothing" after the Federal Building had already been breached previously and the protesters managed to drive off the PPB while causing far more significant damage to the Federal Building as a consequence.

Anyone who thinks "The Federal Response was an over-reach" in response to "small fires" being set in the federal building. Imagine what the response would have been if they'd managed to burn out one or more floors of the building instead?

Also consider how Republicans would have been responding to Trump "having allowed this to happen" after it was "made clear the Portland Police couldn't adequately protect the building."

The "Storm Troopers" weren't there to stir the pot. The Federal Police were sent in to prevent Trump from looking bad by having a Federal Building destroyed or significantly damaged under his watch. Fenring's option D is probably the closest one to the truth.

36
From all reports that I had heard, the protests and crimes were deescalating before the Federal officers showed up.  Sure, there was graffiti and broken windows, but it costs a lot less to fix those than pay for all those officers. :)  If there was little violence to quell, what do you think Trump expected to see when he sent in the troops?  A faster de-escalation?  :)

No, the only reasonable expectation was a re-escalation of the protests, maybe helped by a few questionable arrests of people off the street.  That's the kind of flashy result that Trump likes.  He isn't the kind of President that does things quietly, in the background, with the full consensus of local mayors and governors.  He is the Reality Show President. ;)

Things were not de-escalating. The Federal building had been broken into and had fires set in it the night before the Feds turned up.

That isn't a de-escalation, and further,it demonstrated the Portland Police appeared to be unable to defend the location on their own, so Federal Officers were sent to better protect the building.

37
The best case you can make is that their presence was inciting violence. And if anyone has a problem with a LEO simply being present in a public space, especially one they're charged with protecting, there are larger problems that need addressed, and it isn't the LEO.
Yes, this is exactly what people have pointed out - the introduction of the stormtroopers predictably escalated tensions, and the completely predictable actions/reactions on both sides fed into each other.

Knowing that introducing the stormtroopers would escalate tensions and the resulting conflicts is on the administration.  Responsibility for any particular instances of violence in on each protester or stormtrooper. Whether human nature is such that people should automatically respect police authority, and that any resulting lack of respect is something that can be "addressed" is an interesting question, but quite separate from the actions of the administration leading to escalating violence.

The "Federal Stormtroopers" didn't turn up until those "peaceful protesters" had broken into the federal building, after several nights of attempts being foiled by the Portland Police, and started causing property damage inside the building.

So you're saying Federal agents turning up to protect Federal Buildings from being set on fire, something which had already happened, would cause things to escalate to people trying to burn down the Federal Building... Something they were already doing?

38
Except this whole time you've been saying if the Feds left the building and parts of the city would burn and turn into a mad max hellscape. Okay, I made up the last parts but you clearly said this only ended with either the protesters being crushed or the federal building burning. But the federal police force left and nothing happened. The protesters stayed peaceful, I guess you are crediting the local police for stepping up?

I guess I'm going to have to go dig through the back posts. But first it should be pointed out that even in the reports about the agreement for the withdrawal of federal agents said they were NOT leaving immediately, as their departure was contingent on "the security of the Federal Building being demonstrated" (absent their needing to become involved.)

But as to "being crushed of the federal building burning." I'm pretty sure my statement was a bit more nuanced than that, although I could see how certain people might have favored that option. One of the points I also frequently made in all of this was the "peaceful protesters" turning up in very large numbers was providing aid and support for the more violent ones by virtue of simply being there. "Crushing the (violent) protesters" always had two options that I'm pretty sure I covered and you're conveniently ignoring.
1) The truly peaceful protesters stop showing up in large numbers. (The violent protesters lose the very large crowd to hide in--that happened on Thursday and Friday night, after the "withdrawal" was announced)
2) The peaceful protesters police their own ranks and stop the more violent protesters from doing anything to provoke a police response against the crowd. (This also happened on Thursday and Friday night in Portland)

Quote
It seems more likely that we see now what the federal police were there for, to inflame tensions so Trump could point to liberal Portland and try to scare the crap out of people about how horrible it would be. Instead when his boys packed up and went home things calmed back down to the level before they arrived.

The changing of the (public) guard for the Federal Buildings was only a symbolic contributor to the rapid deescalation in Portland. For the vast majority of Joe Public protester, the announcement that the Feds were leaving was mission accomplished, and allowed for Item #1 to take place, which in turn allowed those that remained to accomplish item #2.

It wasn't the Federal Agents causing the situation in the way you're wanting to cast it. The agents were doing nothing to directly incite the responses that were being seen. The best case you can make is that their presence was inciting violence. And if anyone has a problem with a LEO simply being present in a public space, especially one they're charged with protecting, there are larger problems that need addressed, and it isn't the LEO.

I will agree there were major optics problems that the Feds were contending with, especially after the middle of the month. Which helped to considerably swell the size of the crowds, but again, they weren't instigating what was going on, but responding the reality of the situation they were in. The escalations which happened were entirely on the people mixed within the ranks of the protesters.

And I'm not entirely convinced the Federal Building in Portland is out of danger just yet. We'll see in another month.

39
You seem to be using this article to demonstrate the violent nature of protests, while ignoring the second part of the article, which in the headline is "But Second March Peaceful".

Second march was at the Federal Building which (presumably) had enough law enforcement presence to present a "hard target" so the agitators moved on to "soft targets" instead. The hard target remained peaceful because the agitators shifted to the soft one, as they otherwise lacked the numbers to be able to "blend in" with the otherwise "peaceful protesters" at the Federal Building.

I'm pretty sure I explicitly said in an earlier post that if the peaceful protesters disassociated with the agitators, the Federal Building attacks would stop.
Exactly that has happened.

40
So on Thursday night the Oregon State Police were announced as taking over (public facing) security of the Federal Buildings, and people were told the Feds were leaving(not quite correct, but close enough).

This resulted in many of the people who were turning out to protest "Trump's police" didn't turn up Thursday night. The greatly reduced crowd turnout resulted in lack of sufficient cover for the agitators to do much, it was further mitigate by several of the protesters who did turn up on Thursday and Friday nights also helped "police their own" which was much easier without the huge crowds present.

But that wasn't the end of it.

The agitators simply changed venues.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251060
Quote
Meanwhile, a group of about two hundred marched from Laurelhurst Park, blocking traffic lanes, to the Penumbra Kelly Building, 4735 East Burnside Street. The group stood blocking East Burnside Street, shined bright lights at Portland Police officers standing outside the building, directed lasers at the officers and eventually began throwing glass bottles at them. Vehicles blocked East Burnside Street from Northeast 47th Avenue to Northeast 50th Avenue.

A person in the crowd threw a glass jar or bottle filled with paint, which struck a Portland Police officer in the head. The officer was not injured.

Portland Police provided public address announcements directing people to remain off of the property of the Penumbra Kelly Building and to move away to the west. As people continued to throw glass bottles and other objects Portland Police declared that the assembly blocking East Burnside was unlawful and directed people to disperse.

Portland Police dispersed the crowd, directing it west. People continued to throw glass and plastic bottles at police. People with "press" written on their outer garments repeatedly threw objects at officers. Portland Police continued moving the crowd to the west and south.
Near East Burnside and Southeast 44th Avenue a person moved a car slowly in front of police, interfering with their attempts to safely move people out of the road. To remove the hazard the car presented, Portland Police deflated its tires and passed it by. Upon reaching Southeast 41st Avenue and Southeast Pine Street, Portland Police disengaged and returned to the Penumbra Kelly Building. Portland Police took people into custody during this dispersal. Max Van Briesen, 31, of Portland, was booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center on charges of Assaulting a Public Safety Officer, Interfering with a Police Officer, and Disorderly Conduct in the Second Degree. Freedom Moreno, 34, of Portland, was charged with Interfering with a Police Officer, Disorderly Conduct in the Second Degree, Resist Arrest, and Harassment.

A large portion of the crowd marched blocking city streets and circled back toward the Penumbra Kelly Building. Portland Police met the crowd near Southeast 50th near East Burnside and directed it south all the way to Southeast Belmont Street. Again people with "press" written on their outer garments were among those throwing objects at police. Portland Police disengaged from the crowd near Southeast Belmont Street and Southeast 48th Avenue. The crowd did not return to the Penumbra Kelly Building. There was no use of CS gas.

41
US Attorney's office in Portland just filed charges against a anti-fa"white supremacist" protester for throwing an explosive incendiary device at the Federal Building on the 28th of July.

https://thepostmillennial.com/antifa-militant-whose-grandma-bought-him-riot-vest-has-been-charged-with-arson

Although the actual press release is amusing enough:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/portland-man-charged-july-28-2020-arson-mark-o-hatfield-us-courthouse
Quote
ATF investigators reviewed social media posts from the night of the explosion and located videos of the incendiary object being thrown. The individual depicted throwing the object, later identified to be Agard-Berryhill, was a young, Caucasian male wearing a green colored vest, camouflage pants, and a mask. Investigators observed the person in other protest-related videos posted online wearing the same vest and attempting to hold a shield in front of a naked woman.

Investigators also found a post on Twitter depicting a product review for the vest. The review included a photo of a person wearing the vest who matched the description of the person seen throwing the explosive device. The review states “I got this [vest] for my grandson who’s a protestor [sic] downtown, he uses it every night and says its [sic] does the job.” Investigators later found the same photo on a Facebook page and, using law enforcement databases, were able to positively identify Agard-Berryhill.

42
The non-nefarious answer to that is we know mail-in voting is rife for all kinds of abuse and "systemic issues" as witnessed with the whole 20% vote disqualification rate in one (local) race.
Actually - we really do not know this.

It is reasonable to conclude the story is likely to play out in a lot of the country if most votes are done by mail.

https://thefulcrum.us/fact-check/paterson-election-fraud

If it has already happened once this year, it can happen again.
And given what the process is for challenging ballots you can be reasonably certain that both sides will likely be challenging any error on an absentee ballot cast from a district they know to not be likely to swing their way when it comes to the known swing states in particular.

We're going to be setting records for "set aside" ballots, and both parties on their own would likely be able to pull off shattering that record, never mind the combined stat.

43
General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: July 31, 2020, 05:13:38 PM »
But the elephant in the room is, even if immunity only lasts 3 months, it would massively arrest active cases, you know, the way responsible countries have done with masks and shutdowns.

Oh, like the measles in the United States even with something like 80% of the population vaccinated against it at present? Something that was once eradicated within out borders but has now returned(although the covid19 stuff should have helped put a hard stop on that once more), and proven hard to eradicate because people refuse to get that vaccine despite it's long history of safe use?

44
Well, this is out his own mouth.

Quote
Wallace asked Trump “can you give a direct answer that you will accept the election?”

“I have to see,” Trump said of accepting the result in November. “I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.”

You tell me how to interpret that as Trump saying he'd accept the results.

The non-nefarious answer to that is we know mail-in voting is rife for all kinds of abuse and "systemic issues" as witnessed with the whole 20% vote disqualification rate in one (local) race.

His answer is completely valid in the context of a scenario where the margin of victory in a small number of states is less than a 4 percentage points if there are wide spread reports of ballots either being "held" due to verification concerns, or other anomalies like more people voting in a precinct than live within its borders.

If there is a "clear decision" by the voters, the answer is obvious. But if the result is ambiguous, or takes longer than overnight to suss out than "we'll see" is the correct and only valid response he can give.

Do you really think Biden is going to give a clear cut answer on "Accepting the results" at this stage of the game? But of course, Biden isn't the one you're worried about.

45
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: July 31, 2020, 04:42:42 PM »
Although I would say in many respects, I almost want to see a 5% or higher (mail in) ballot disqualification rate to happen in the initial count where the margin of victory is less than 2%.

Depending on controls in place, that means they should be able to start trying to contact the voter to validate they did in fact cast a ballot.

Won't it be interesting to find out how many of those either cannot be found, deny they voted, are found to have been deceased well before any voting was possible, or haven't lived in that area for years(and naturally deny they voted)?

46
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: July 31, 2020, 04:33:23 PM »
Some other areas were reporting something on the order of 20% of received ballots being invalidated because the signatures didn't match, among other disqualification criteria.

Really, the signatures didn't match? Heavens to murgatroyd! My signature has devolved to a sideways E. Signatures don't matter. Have you seen anyone in retail lately who even looked to match your signature to ID? Or even asked for ID? Sure, there are a lot of ways that someone can steal a local election with 20,000 votes or less. That's not the conversation about the EC and millions of votes.
[/quote]

Yes, but with the margins with which some states were won in 2016, a 20% disqualification rate in the right districts could have a very significant outcome in which way the EC vote turns. And naturally adjudicating THAT is likely going to take longer than the mandated timeline for the choosing of electors and the casting of their votes.

But by the flip side, they probably DO have a longer timeline for resolving the outcome of congressional races however.

It's likely a number of Congressional seats won't have outcomes finalized until around Christmas, and then it becomes a game of what the final form of the Congressional Delegation decides to do with the likely to still be disputed Electoral College vote decisions. Where it will likely be congress, using shenanigans not seen since reconstruction to decide which EC votes they'll honor, and which they won't. And even then, they may just decide to "vote it out" on the House Floor depending on how many states have their ballots disqualified and which way they want to interpret things from there.

Whomever is Speaker of the House on January 4th may quite possibly be Acting PotUS on January 20th depending on how big of a mess things have become.

47
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: July 31, 2020, 11:15:53 AM »
Meanwhile, in some mail in races, they've had a City Council election in New Jersey where multiple (Democrat) council members were charged with voter fraud because of antics with mail-in voting.

Some other areas were reporting something on the order of 20% of received ballots being invalidated because the signatures didn't match, among other disqualification criteria.

48
General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:33:39 AM »
Where are you getting the data that you'd need 5-6 shots per year? I haven't seen any data, and the flu is just an annual cocktail of the major strains. I think they just don't know yet. But if we could get down to influenza levels we could live with it.

No vaccine in the history of medicine has been shown to offer better protection against future infection than being infected with the virus itself.

Studies are indicating that Covid19 antibodies, primary indicators of the body retaining an immunity to the virus after infection, only last between 45 to 90 days among recovering Covid19 patients.

So unless they somehow have created a vaccine that defies all prior experience in the field of immunology, the maximum effectiveness window you should expect is 90 days. With the minimum being 45 days, that means 60 days is the "happy medium" where they'd probably set the guideline for most people. (although some may be advised to get boosted more frequently than that, monthly maybe?)

49
General Comments / Re: General Barr's Hearing
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:29:20 AM »
I'm looking forward to reading how the Republicans treated the "Masters of the Universe" and if they calmly waited for them to answer questions. I'll report back later.

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

In the meantime, I'm wondering about what kind of bizzaro funhouse world we're in right now where Donald Trump is the strongest candidate for law and order rather than mob rule. That's insane, but that's what the Democrats are presenting the voting public with.

But the Democrats have cast their lot with the angry mob, and the agitators, so that's what we have.

50
Is it really so wild to be concerned that Trump might refuse to accept the results of the election, therefore "stealing" it, when he won't stipulate accepting the results?

He did answer that question in June. If he loses, he'll leave. In the meantime he's having fun getting the media to talk about him by complaining about how the Democrats want to use voting methods that are even more prone to fraud and disenfranchisement than the existing in-person voting system.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 80