I love my country, but we're going through a rough patch

[wmLambert]

...rump is doing an effective job of providing them with sound bites they're using to fan the flames. Otherwise they're just taking his remarks, ignoring them, and declaring he said something else entirely. (His speech at Mount Rushmore)

There is no alternative when going around a complicit media to answer disinformation. Anything said can be paraphrased incorrectly, and if the MSM is no longer a professional pillar of society and won't vet itself, there is no reason to expect honesty in reporting.

[Wayward Son]

Lambert, how can you seriously believe he is a unifier when his approval polls haven't budged from 40 percent the entire time he has been in office? 

Doesn't it follow that someone who unifies the country is actually popular in that country?  Wouldn't a unifier have less than half the country consistently disapprove of him?  Can you name another unifiers that was as unpopular as Trump??

The only thing he unifies is the polarities to their extremes.  Those who love him are more unified; those who hate him are even more unified.  But that is a far cry from someone who unifies everyone in the country together.

[TheDeamon]

Lambert, how can you seriously believe he is a unifier when his approval polls haven't budged from 40 percent the entire time he has been in office? 

When you have all but one major and a handful of smaller media/news outlets that are openly hostile towards him. It's really easy to see how even the best human being imaginable could have trouble breaking 50% approval.

And Ironically enough, for Christians their "best human imaginable" actually had a comparable problem. But that's as far as I care to go with that comparison as it fails on most other levels.

Doesn't it follow that someone who unifies the country is actually popular in that country?  Wouldn't a unifier have less than half the country consistently disapprove of him?  Can you name another unifiers that was as unpopular as Trump??

To be fair, if someone is only managing to reliably hold an approval rating in the low 50th percentile range, they're not "a Unifier." They're either a divider, or dealing with overtly hostile media coverage skewing perceptions across most of the media spectrum.
 

The only thing he unifies is the polarities to their extremes.  Those who love him are more unified; those who hate him are even more unified.  But that is a far cry from someone who unifies everyone in the country together.

Weird, I know the same claims were being made about Obama too, and his approval ratings spent most of its time under 50% from what I'm seeing according to Gallop. And most of the media loved him to the point of borderline worship, so he certainly wasn't dealing in a wide spectrum hostile press.

[wmLambert]

...how can you seriously believe he is a unifier when his approval polls haven't budged from 40 percent the entire time he has been in office?

Since the MSM is almost 100% guilty of misrepresenting everything about him, any number above zero shows there are a few intelligent people out there who understand when they see disinformation.

You can't use polling which is skewed to prove very much, but you should be able to understand facts - and the metrics have proved how Trump has been good for minorities. Since the so-called disunity comes from those who want to stage a coup and take over from him, should anything they say be given credence?

[DonaldD]

... or maybe, along with all his other attempts to divide the country, his outreach to white supremacists and racists has put off the majority of those who believe that white supremacy and racism is really, really bad?

[Fenring]

... or maybe, along with all his other attempts to divide the country, his outreach to white supremacists and racists has put off the majority of those who believe that white supremacy and racism is really, really bad?

No one's opinion of him has changes one jot since his election, and there was zero inkling of any of what you say in his campaign unless you include the wall stuff. But the idea that people have been 'put off' because of alleged dog whistles to racists is misleading at best; most who hate him already did before he even became the Rep candidate.

[DonaldD]

No one's opinion of him has changes one jot since his election, and there was zero inkling of any of what you say in his campaign unless you include the wall stuff. But the idea that people have been 'put off' because of alleged dog whistles to racists is misleading at best; most who hate him already did before he even became the Rep candidate.

Not true at all.  That's why polls show his approval and disapproval ratings going both up and down.  Sure, there are some whose opinions haven't changed, but many have.

[DonaldD]

.. not to mention, he literally kicked off his candidacy with a racist screed against Mexicans, and continued doing so without pause (including with his comments about Mexican judges, etc, etc).

So you have to factor in that he initially baked into his approval ratings a certain amount of resistance to his racism.

[TheDrake]

To be a unifier, you have to make a concession and create compromise. Like give the Democrats or the Press some of what they want? Like DACA citizenship for wall money?

[DonaldD]

If the "post-hoc" argument had nothing to do with the post of mine that you quoted, then you shouldn't have quoted those words from my post.

I quoted that portion of your text, which I'll repeat here just to avoid potential confusion -

Is there any evidence that the protests caused a significant number of infections, significant as compared to all the other behaviours leading to the infection rates?  We should see huge spikes in the areas where the protests happened, and ongoing reductions in infection rates elsewhere.

Is that what we see?

- because it very much carries the connotation that the protests weren't really a significant health concern, despite some people trying to make it look like one.

No, it didn't carry that connotation.  I pointed out, initially, that those protests were a terrible idea from the perspective of the pandemic, but what you quoted was simply about the data analysis - the actual words were limited to pointing out that the actual data did not seem to support the argument, as put forward by TheDaemon, that the protests caused any significant increase in infections.

You do this all the time - inserting yourself into a discussion, while being completely unaware that your partisan blinders cause you to misread the actual written words.

[Fenring]

- because it very much carries the connotation that the protests weren't really a significant health concern, despite some people trying to make it look like one.

No, it didn't carry that connotation.  I pointed out, initially, that those protests were a terrible idea from the perspective of the pandemic, but what you quoted was simply about the data analysis - the actual words were limited to pointing out that the actual data did not seem to support the argument, as put forward by TheDaemon, that the protests caused any significant increase in infections.

Yes, I know that your literal text said this. But I don't think I'm off base using my 'crystal ball' to intuit that if your remarks take the form of a rebuttal that you are opposed to TheDeamon's proposition (that BLM is 'magic' and is treated like it doesn't count re: COVID). When I read something like this -

Huge protests in those states, yet no increase in cases coincident with the protests... hmmm...

the requisite snark shows pretty clearly that you not only think objectively that there is no spike evident, but that in addition you find the idea silly that there was one. No, you did not outright say that, but if we're forbidden to draw fairly obvious conclusions from text then next to zero data can be extracted from anything anyone says. Language and communication don't actually work like that. It seems to me a motte and bailey approach to language to use insinuating words and punctuation but then withdraw to claiming you meant literally nothing more than was written. I'm not accusing you, btw, but rather objecting to the idea that reading between the lines is somehow bad form; it's actually a necessary component of language. We do not literally say everything we mean or think.

Here's another point, that has oft been brought up in one form or another:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_restricted_choice

Loosely stated it is a principle showing that the odds of someone having a holding in cards is reduced when they 'choose' not to play it on a card play, because they may have not played it because they chose to, and may not have because they could not. Thus failing to produce a card on a play has an increased chance that they lack that card than just 50/50. The principle holds for choosing to make statements; if you fail to produce a particular argument, there is a greater chance you don't hold it or believe it, as the reason for not stating it might alternatively be that one chose not to say it on this occasion, or that one doesn't believe it. When I see a consistent trend towards only arguments on one side the Law applies; the odds that the person actually believes it but chose not to remark on it is reduced. For instance in this occasion, why not just say to TheDeamon "yeah it was bad, but it may not have caused that much damage in hindsight". An easy opportunity to express at least partial agreement, but instead your wrote a somewhat snarky rebuttal; that doesn't sound to me like you partially agree. Is this an irrational conclusion?

You do this all the time - inserting yourself into a discussion, while being completely unaware that your partisan blinders cause you to misread the actual written words.

Yes, sorry for participating in a discussion on a discussion forum, next time I'll ask permission, and I'll be doubly sure to make sure I have no biases before posting. Sorry to be the outlier on Ornery in having a point of view...

/snark

That said, I think "partisan blinders" doesn't mean what you think it means. You are using it to mean "you disagree with me", whereas in fact it ought to mean I have a strict compliance with a particular partisan (conservative, I guess?) side. But hold on: if you check your own post history and mine, you will likely find that the cause of police brutality, violence, and mistreatment of people is a cause I've posted about probably 100 times more than you have. That might actually literally be accurate. I've started multiple threads about it, many of which were about black people being killed for no reason. They weren't BLM threads per se, but were about the issue they were protesting, which includes the need for vast police reform. I know this won't fit into your theory that all dissent from your POV is "partisan" but I'm sorry to tell you that your idea about my post is pretty absent in terms of accuracy. The side I'm taking about the protests screwing around with COVID morale is a pro-social distancing position. And yet I also am strongly in support of police reform, and largely agree with the object of the protests. But yeah, I object to one thing and I have "partisan blinders". You really need to dispense with the us vs them idea, man.

[DonaldD]

As Kasandra was wont to point out - your crystal ball is broken, more often than not, and you are completely oblivious to this fact.

<shrug>

[Fenring]

As Kasandra was wont to point out - your crystal ball is broken, more often than not, and you are completely oblivious to this fact.

<shrug>

Then what explanation do you have - not that you owe one, but if you're willing to satisfy my curiosity - for offering snark in response to TheDeamon's comment about how people weren't allowed to gather in their own back yard but a gathering of 1,000 people was ok? If my crystal ball is broken then what purpose was there in offering a curt rebuttal rather than offering any point of agreement?

I won't even comment on your definition of partisan, since I'm probably further to the left than you are on many issues.

[DonaldD]

If you prefer an example

the requisite snark shows pretty clearly that you not only think objectively that there is no spike evident, but that in addition you find the idea silly that there was one.

Incorrect assumption - the snark was directed to the certainty displayed in TheDaemon's conclusion, not only in the absence of evidence, but in the presence of refuting evidence.

If I were to point out every time you speculate on people's motives or assume their true thinking, it would be a full time job.  Kasandra tried it for a while, but it was exhausting just watching it - I have no interest in schooling you on your every post.

[TheDeamon]

I decided to go back and dig into the root of this particular dispute.

Or more recently in Oregon there was a recent meme, which sadly I didn't research further at the time to verify, but it holds with what was being reported that day nationwide.

Their City Twitter feed announces a BLM protest to happen on the 4th of July and how they expect over 1,000 people to attend the protest.

A few hours later, the City Twitter account announces 4th of July Celebratory events have been canceled due to Covid19 and the danger of large gatherings.

The BLM Protest still happened though.

BLM is Magic, it somehow protects people from getting Covid19, but everything else involving large groups of people is dangerous and to be avoided.

And yet people wonder why others have decided it's all bulls*** now?

Is there any evidence that the protests caused a significant number of infections, significant as compared to all the other behaviours leading to the infection rates?  We should see huge spikes in the areas where the protests happened, and ongoing reductions in infection rates elsewhere.

Is that what we see?

What I note now is an interesting deflection. I point out how a town canceled 4th of July Celebrations because large crowds are dangerous(due to Covid), even though the public portions of those celebrations would be outdoors.

Meanwhile, the outdoor BLM protest(just like the 4th of July event), which they also anticipated as being large, was allowed to proceed because it somehow wasn't a risk to spreading the disease?

And you retort by asking if there is evidence of disease spread from BLM protests.

Doesn't matter in that specific instance. Can you elucidate on what would be materially different about the (public) 4th of July observance in comparison to the BLM protest? As it is reasonable to assume that canceling the fireworks show and other related events probably did not stop people from having private gatherings anyway.

Which brings us back to "it's magic" as BLM protests are somehow capable of stopping Covid19 spread in ways that other public gatherings in the exact same kind of circumstances, are incapable of doing. At least as per that City's twitter feed.

[DonaldD]

I decided to go back and dig into the root of this particular dispute.

Or more recently in Oregon there was a recent meme, which sadly I didn't research further at the time to verify, but it holds with what was being reported that day nationwide.

Interesting - you excised the portion of your post to which I was actually responding.

Here is the beginning of your post to which I was responding:

Nobody expects Trump to have regulated the country out of the pandemic.  What he has done is communicated the country into a much worse situation, and Republicans and libertarians are not so dumb as to be unaware of that.  Similarly, they can see him lighting the fires of white supremacy and racism, and neither group is inherently supportive of the country's history of slavery or racism.

Problem is, you run into the BLM protests. Trump bloviating around wasn't the problem. Even the New York Times is starting to realize that was a major mistake.

The problem we have was public health officials condemning the reopening protests, then turning around to actively encourage participation in BLM protests, while simultaneously discouraging other activities.

I had one friend a month ago who noticed that in his areas gatherings of more than 10 people were not allowed, but protests of up to 100 people were. He promptly announced he was having a protest in his back yard and asked people to bring food.

Or more recently in Oregon there was a recent meme, which sadly I didn't research further at the time to verify, but it holds with what was being reported that day nationwide.
...

Since you were responding to my post, where I blame Trump for "[communicating] the country into a much worse situation", I think it fair to expect that you claiming that "Trump bloviating around wasn't the problem" was a reference to my "much worse situation" characterization.  In which case your "you run into the BLM protests" statement clearly suggested you thought that the BLM protests were the problem.  Which problem?  Presumably, the problem to which you were responding in my quote, the much worse pandemic situation.

Now, if that is NOT what you meant, then I clearly misread you - did I? In which case, what did you mean by "[running] into the BLM protests", if not that they made the infection numbers, not just worse, but responsible for all of the excess infections in a way that Trump was not responsible by his mishandling of the pandemic?

[Fenring]

If you prefer an example

the requisite snark shows pretty clearly that you not only think objectively that there is no spike evident, but that in addition you find the idea silly that there was one.

Incorrect assumption - the snark was directed to the certainty displayed in TheDaemon's conclusion, not only in the absence of evidence, but in the presence of refuting evidence.

But TheDeamon wasn't in any obvious may making a numerical claim; he seems to me to have been saying that for all the talk of everything being Trump's fault, none of it is laid at the feet of the protests. Now he seems to go further and assign more blame to the protests than to Trump, which is an assessment that would be hard to calculate, never mind trying to refute it using only COVID spike numbers. You'd have to ask first 'made worse in what way'. I already argued an example of this, not sure if TheDeamon meant anything like that, but as the point I have to just assume someone read it and didn't have anything to say. But assuming that citing some immediate spike data somehow refutes the claim that the protests did damage is a specious rebuttal. Now it would be fine as an added on point, but as a rebuttal it doesn't really contradict anything TheDeamon said, other than to show that at least on that particular front the data is inconclusive in support his point. So taking a general point about how the hypocrisy of allowing a protest while denying lesser things, and the experts seesawing on the point, and having you attempt to answer that with some data that may or may not be on point, is what I was responding to. That he was so certain is obviously something I can understand you taking issue with, but if all you were trying to communicate was that he shouldn't be so certain that was a failure IMO.

If I were to point out every time you speculate on people's motives or assume their true thinking, it would be a full time job.  Kasandra tried it for a while, but it was exhausting just watching it - I have no interest in schooling you on your every post.

I do speculate on motives, yes, and specifically I try to zero in on what the real opinion of the poster is. I'm not quite as interested in points of debate refutation as I am in trying to figure out the real point of view behind the particular argument. To an extent I think our goal actually should be to come to understand that ideas, or mindset, of each other so that we can actually know what is being argued. The text on the screen is rather insufficient to be able to reply to anyone and have it be a real answer. Most often what you'll see is arguments about straw men when the real ideas are not on the table. It's easy to sometimes win an argument when you never even considered what the other person really thinks. You just set upon some text they write.

Now to the extent that 'motive speculation' is a no-no on the forum, I believe the meaning of that is we're not supposed to undermine someone's point by announcing why they wrote it; e.g.. "oh well that's a bad argument because you're just sore that the liberals are right." It's a sort of ad hominem with the purpose of avoiding a meeting of minds, and I don't do that. What I do try to do is to pin down why an argument was posed so that we can get past short blurbs of text and have a meeting of minds. It takes some risk to do that insofar as one can try to find the POV behind a comment, but you won't always be right. If personal POV's are off the table and only text is in bounds then it would actually limit discussion to the point of a puppet show. In reality most posts here do engage in motive analysis, as in trying to determine the person's political views, personality, and habits and so forth. These are germane IMO and no one complains. If you think I'm way off base in assigning a POV to a post of yours, sure, I might just be flat wrong, but maybe you should consider that you are flat wrong too...about your own post that is. You obviously know your POV, but one is not always aware of what one communicated in text writing. If I say your post came off as blatantly dismissive, maybe calling my comment 'blindly partisan' is itself the bad kind of motive speculation; ignoring an argument by assigning an epithet to the poster. Maybe, just maybe, I really did see what I saw and what you wrote wasn't representative of your POV.

[DonaldD]

I do speculate on motives, yes, and specifically I try to zero in on what the real opinion of the poster is.

Yes, and you really shouldn't do so, not least because you are really, really bad at it. And more often than not, your misinterpretations and misrepresentations foul up the discussions. Like in this instance.

[TheDeamon]

Nobody expects Trump to have regulated the country out of the pandemic.  What he has done is communicated the country into a much worse situation, and Republicans and libertarians are not so dumb as to be unaware of that.  Similarly, they can see him lighting the fires of white supremacy and racism, and neither group is inherently supportive of the country's history of slavery or racism.

Problem is, you run into the BLM protests. Trump bloviating around wasn't the problem. Even the New York Times is starting to realize that was a major mistake.

The problem we have was public health officials condemning the reopening protests, then turning around to actively encourage participation in BLM protests, while simultaneously discouraging other activities.

I had one friend a month ago who noticed that in his areas gatherings of more than 10 people were not allowed, but protests of up to 100 people were. He promptly announced he was having a protest in his back yard and asked people to bring food.

Or more recently in Oregon there was a recent meme, which sadly I didn't research further at the time to verify, but it holds with what was being reported that day nationwide.
...

Since you were responding to my post, where I blame Trump for "[communicating] the country into a much worse situation", I think it fair to expect that you claiming that "Trump bloviating around wasn't the problem" was a reference to my "much worse situation" characterization.  In which case your "you run into the BLM protests" statement clearly suggested you thought that the BLM protests were the problem.  Which problem?  Presumably, the problem to which you were responding in my quote, the much worse pandemic situation.

Now, if that is NOT what you meant, then I clearly misread you - did I? In which case, what did you mean by "[running] into the BLM protests", if not that they made the infection numbers, not just worse, but responsible for all of the excess infections in a way that Trump was not responsible by his mishandling of the pandemic?

Trump confused the issue by his bloviating, he continues to confuse the issue. He certainly isn't helping, but the amount of harm he's be capable of it is was only him and some of his administration doing so is questionable. Sure it would have some kind of impact that would be difficult to quantify in any kind of meaningful way, but it would have been small.

The thing they "blew the doors down" and let the animals out of the barn and scattered everywhere were the public health officials who decided that BLM was more important than anything else. And then went about creating contradictory positions on things. Like the whole matter of being in a group of 10 or more people is dangerous and to be avoided. But being in a BLM protest with 1,000 people is okay.

It's unsafe to celebrate the fourth of July because even small social gatherings are dangerous because of covid, but BLM protests with hundreds of people are okay.

Most rational people are going to say "that does not make sense" and they did, and the covid numbers going up, and up, and up are a consequence of that.

[DonaldD]

The thing they "blew the doors down" and let the animals out of the barn and scattered everywhere were the public health officials who decided that BLM was more important than anything else. And then went about creating contradictory positions on things. Like the whole matter of being in a group of 10 or more people is dangerous and to be avoided. But being in a BLM protest with 1,000 people is okay.

Who said that having thousands of people in a BLM protest would be "okay" from the perspective of that not likely leading to increased viral spread?  Anybody saying that would have been stupid.

Most rational people are going to say "that does not make sense" and they did, and the covid numbers going up, and up, and up are a consequence of that.

Huh.  You were shown data that disputed this assertion a few days ago:

For instance

• Illinois - lots of large protests.  Continuing decrease in cases.
• Minnesota - new cases dropped to a plateau, then remained steady
• New York - steady decrease
• Pennsylvania - steady decrease, to a base level

Huge protests in those states, yet no increase in cases coincident with the protests... hmmm...

LA is seeing a huge spike in cases, and it's had some truly massive protests, and riots as well.

LA is seeing a huge spike in cases, and it's had some truly massive protests, and riots as well.

So - some states with massive protests saw no spike in cases, while other states with massive protests saw a spike in cases.

What does that suggest to you?

If it helps, you can see a graph of California's new daily cases here.

California's new case count had been rising steadily since March.  There is no sudden spike of cases 2 or 3 weeks after the protests began.  In fact, the new case graph how's a very steady upwards trend, with a slight increase in the new daily case rate about 4 weeks after the protests began, and that increase in rate was not dramatic.  So unless there was time travel involved, something else was going on in California.

[TheDeamon]

Donald, you're arguing against a point I'm not making.

I am not saying the protests themselves were a vector for the significant spread of Covid19 since the start of June.

I am saying how health officials have treated the BLM protests have resulted in people deciding to ignore them and just do their own thing instead. Which has resulted in the runaway spread of Covid19 in the United States.

So yes, the BLM protests are a cause for the spread that is being seen. But the protests do not seem to the be the vector through which it happened.

You can argue they weren't the vector for spread to your hearts content, you're trying to prove a point that isn't in much of a dispute. There were suspicions as early as mid-May that outdoor gatherings could be reasonably safe, and the BLM rallies appear to have validated that. (Remember Trump getting flack about using UV light internally? That was when there was a growing body of evidence saying outdoors in sunlight may not be much of a problem.. But health officials only gave their "blessing" for BLM at the end of May.)

But I'm not arguing about a spread vector, I'm arguing about what triggered people ignoring health guidelines on a massive scale and the resulting surge in cases.

[TheDrake]

I am saying how health officials have treated the BLM protests have resulted in people deciding to ignore them and just do their own thing instead. Which has resulted in the runaway spread of Covid19 in the United States.

BS. Everybody was already trying their hardest to repeal or ignore every health measure. It's not like the protests inspired them to question masks.

[DonaldD]

Donald, you're arguing against a point I'm not making.

I am not saying the protests themselves were a vector for the significant spread of Covid19 since the start of June.

I am saying how health officials have treated the BLM protests have resulted in people deciding to ignore them and just do their own thing instead. Which has resulted in the runaway spread of Covid19 in the United States.

So yes, the BLM protests are a cause for the spread that is being seen. But the protests do not seem to the be the vector through which it happened.

You can argue they weren't the vector for spread to your hearts content, you're trying to prove a point that isn't in much of a dispute. There were suspicions as early as mid-May that outdoor gatherings could be reasonably safe, and the BLM rallies appear to have validated that. (Remember Trump getting flack about using UV light internally? That was when there was a growing body of evidence saying outdoors in sunlight may not be much of a problem.. But health officials only gave their "blessing" for BLM at the end of May.)

But I'm not arguing about a spread vector, I'm arguing about what triggered people ignoring health guidelines on a massive scale and the resulting surge in cases.

OK, but that is not how this reads:

It's unsafe to celebrate the fourth of July because even small social gatherings are dangerous because of covid, but BLM protests with hundreds of people are okay.

Most rational people are going to say "that does not make sense" and they did, and the covid numbers going up, and up, and up are a consequence of that.

What exactly did you mean by "that" if not BLM protests?

[DonaldD]

As for the runaway spread being the result of how experts were responding to the black lives matter protests, again you need a time machine to make that true, since the increases to the infection rates we're kicking up prior to the beginning of the black lives matter protests and again did not increase significantly following the protests - at least not in a perceptibly more rapid fashion.

So the theory that people are responding to the experts' responses to the black lives matter protest doesn't hold water either.

[DonaldD]

In a related vein, here is an interesting article from the BBC about magical thinking and how 50% of those in the USA believe in at least one conspiracy theory: The accidental invention of the Illuminati conspiracy

[TheDeamon]

Donald, you're arguing against a point I'm not making.

I am not saying the protests themselves were a vector for the significant spread of Covid19 since the start of June.

I am saying how health officials have treated the BLM protests have resulted in people deciding to ignore them and just do their own thing instead. Which has resulted in the runaway spread of Covid19 in the United States.

So yes, the BLM protests are a cause for the spread that is being seen. But the protests do not seem to the be the vector through which it happened.

You can argue they weren't the vector for spread to your hearts content, you're trying to prove a point that isn't in much of a dispute. There were suspicions as early as mid-May that outdoor gatherings could be reasonably safe, and the BLM rallies appear to have validated that. (Remember Trump getting flack about using UV light internally? That was when there was a growing body of evidence saying outdoors in sunlight may not be much of a problem.. But health officials only gave their "blessing" for BLM at the end of May.)

But I'm not arguing about a spread vector, I'm arguing about what triggered people ignoring health guidelines on a massive scale and the resulting surge in cases.

OK, but that is not how this reads:

It's unsafe to celebrate the fourth of July because even small social gatherings are dangerous because of covid, but BLM protests with hundreds of people are okay.

Most rational people are going to say "that does not make sense" and they did, and the covid numbers going up, and up, and up are a consequence of that.

What exactly did you mean by "that" if not BLM protests?

It's saying the exact same thing, it just left a lot of it to implication, which you're obviously failing to grasp. How you're not seeing it demonstrates part of the major communication problems society is having right now.

I am saying how health officials have treated the BLM protests have resulted in people deciding to ignore them and just do their own thing instead. Which has resulted in the runaway spread of Covid19 in the United States.

So yes, the BLM protests are a cause for the spread that is being seen. But the protests do not seem to the be the vector through which it happened.

To which "It's unsafe to celebrate the Fourth of July (outdoors) because even small (outdoor) social gatherings are dangerous because of covid, but BLM protests with hundreds of people are okay." Should be an exceptionally easy comment to decipher.

[DonaldD]

Let me repeat the second part of my response, which you seemed to have overlooked:

As for the runaway spread being the result of how experts were responding to the black lives matter protests, again you need a time machine to make that true, since the increases to the infection rates we're kicking up prior to the beginning of the black lives matter protests and again did not increase significantly following the protests - at least not in a perceptibly more rapid fashion.

So the theory that people are responding to the experts' responses to the black lives matter protest doesn't hold water either.

[DonaldD]

Or, as the Darke so succinctly put it:

BS.

[DonaldD]

ACLU re-tweets David Burbach:

ACLU
@ACLU

Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street we call it kidnapping — what is happening now in Portland should concern everyone in the US.

These actions are flat-out unconstitutional and will not go unanswered.

David Burbach
@dburbach

Oregon Public Broadcasting confirms tweets today that federal officers in camouflage but no agency identification or badges, driving unmarked non-government rental cars, are grabbing protestors off streets in Portland and not talking w local authorities

[TheDeamon]

Well, when local government officials don't want to do anything about the current situation. The Feds have a limited range of options.

It should also be noted that in the context that I've seen of "the snatchings" taking place, it isn't completely out of line. Unusual yes, but within the realm of "probable cause" for detention, and anyone who believes you're given a reason for being taken into custody and mirandized before arrival at the station... You've been watching too much TV.

Edit to add: Typical context to my knowledge is person who is detained "matches a description" and the time frame/location also corresponds with "leaving the vicinity where violent protests have occurred which involved actions which are violations under Federal Law."

"Catch and release" by law enforcement without booking the individual also is not an alien practice in the US, it's quite common in major cities.

[DonaldD]

I'm not sure that using masked, non-branded, unidentifiable armed people to apprehend citizens, and put them into unmarked vehicles, is a look that the government wants.  I also seriously doubt it is legal.

It's also interesting that the elected authorities in the area have not requested these interventions - neither the mayor nor the governor seem to want them there...  I understand that the states in the USA do not have the same power or autonomy that Canadian provinces have, but for some reason this seems inconsistent with what I've heard about US federalism.

[TheDeamon]

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

[Wayward Son]

Meanwhile, Oregon state officials are pretty PO'd.

"This political theater from President Trump has nothing to do with public safety," [Gove. Kate] Brown said. "The president is failing to lead this nation. Now he is deploying federal officers to patrol the streets of Portland in a blatant abuse of power by the federal government..."

"I told acting Secretary Wolf that the federal government should remove all federal officers from our streets," Brown said. "His response showed me he is on a mission to provoke confrontation for political purposes. He is putting both Oregonians and local law enforcement officers in harm's way. This, coming from the same president who used tear gas to clear out peaceful protesters in Washington, D.C., to engineer a photo opportunity..."

"Trump is looking for a confrontation in Oregon in the hopes of winning political points in Ohio or Iowa," she said...

"A peaceful protester in Portland was shot in the head by one of Donald Trump's secret police," [U.S. Senator Ron] Wyden wrote on Twitter. "Now Trump and Chad Wolf are weaponizing the DHS as their own occupying army to provoke violence on the streets of my hometown because they think it plays well with right-wing media..."

"Federal forces shot an unarmed protester in the face," [U.S. Senator Jeff] Merkley said. "These shadowy forces have been escalating, not preventing, violence. If Sec. Wolf is coming here to inflame the situation so the president can look like a tough guy, he should turn around and leave our city now."

But I guess Trump knows better than the most senior elected officials in the state, doesn't he?

[TheDeamon]

But I guess Trump knows better than the most senior elected officials in the state, doesn't he?

Funny thing is it is only the state level officials who are speaking out. The City of Portland, and even the County officials have been "strangely quiet" on this front. Even their local news rag, which is calling the Federal Officers "an occupying army" have made observations on that front.

Seems the reality is local government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They've hung their hat on AntiFa over the past several years. While "no proof" has been presented that it is AntiFa and affiliates constantly assaulting the Federal Buildings in Portland, the local gov knows acting against those groups will anger their AntiFa allies.

But by the same token, speaking against what the Federal Government is doing is likely to anger even more of their constituents who know the facts on the ground in the impacted neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, the state officials can keep yammering away about what the Feds are doing because they could give a #%&@ about the welfare or voting interests of people in those neighborhoods, they're playing to an audience in other highly liberal communities to the south of Portland and blissfully unaffected by what's going on there.

[DonaldD]

Local (?) news KGW8

After putting out a written statement last night, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said on Monday, “I want to make it very clear so there's no confusion: the serious injuries sustained by Donavan Labella at the hands of a federal officer were unacceptable.”

The mayor said he wants federal troops out, but he doesn't have the authority to make them leave. But Wheeler took heat for first responding to the incident late Sunday, while his colleagues on city council reacted sooner and stronger.
“Well as to whether they're as strong or not, I think that's a judgement call,” said Wheeler. “But I made it crystal clear what happened in Portland the other night should not have happened.”

So, both the mayor and city council seem to want the federal troops out. And that was several days ago - at least as of Monday.

What did the governor have to say?

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said the street violence, as she called it, has to stop to allow for systemic change to happen.
But she also said, “I don't believe that President Trump ordering troops to the streets in Portland is the solution to the challenges we're facing and I would ask Portlanders to not take the bait.”

“Trump's troops in Portland are definitely not the answer," she said. "As we saw, this only escalates the tension, and we need dialogue and de-escalation."

Clearly, she thinks the federal troops are a provocation and at least partly responsible for the escalating violence which is being perpetrated, as usual, by only a small subset of protesters.

But that is completely separate from the federal troops acting independently of any possible oversight by hiding their identities as well as their affiliations. There are reasons why police must be identifiable.  I can't imagine this is in question.

[TheDeamon]

If it wasn't for the Federal presence in Portland, they'd be down one Federal Courthouse, and one other Federal Building.

Of course, I guess the City of Portland and the state of Washington would be more than happy to see the Federal government spending a couple hundred million in their local area rebuilding those facilities.

How about we not let them get destroyed in the first place?

And my bad, the Mayor was silent up until what happened this past weekend. The Governor had been calling them an occupying army for some time now.

[DonaldD]

It's weird that both the Governor and Mayor want federal buildings destroyed.

[TheDeamon]

It's weird that both the Governor and Mayor want federal buildings destroyed.

It is, isn't it? If they don't want the Feds to get involved in defending those buildings, why hasn't the local Police been doing so?

[DonaldD]

It's probably because they are evil geniuses, or maybe just evil.  You get that a lot with crazy leftists.  Plus, they hate the USA. And freedom

[TheDrake]

A news google of federal courthouse portland - July 4th

article

Police broke up a group of several hundred protesters in downtown Portland overnight Thursday and into Friday morning. Crowd control munitions were used after protesters shot fireworks towards police, broke windows and set what appeared to be a small fire inside the federal courthouse, police said.

So I guess that doesn't count? Or its just not enough, and they should be gassing and clubbing everyone in sight over graffiti?

Meanwhile if the Feds want to defend the courthouse, that would be the job of the US Marshals, not some shadowy government agency picking up random people from the street who may or may not have been involved in any violent protest. Without any due process, it's kind of hard to know, isn't it?

“The U.S. Marshals are responsible for the protection of the federal judiciary, and we take that responsibility very seriously. While we do not discuss our specific security measures, we continuously review the security measures in place and take appropriate steps to provide additional protection when it is warranted,” said an official with the U.S. Marshals.

Their antifa pals are probably going to be pissed that they're being sent to jail.

Officials say 9 people have been criminally charged, one person is facing federal charges.

[Wayward Son]

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

Did anybody read this?  Wolf ends the statement with "a snapshot of the lawless destruction and violence of the past several weeks that Department of Homeland Security and its subcomponents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and Federal Protective Service have faced."

You know what most of that "lawless destruction and violence" is? 

Graffiti.

05/29/2020

Violent anarchists broke a front window at the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Overall, the cost of damages on federal property done by the violent mob this first night was estimated at $5,000.
05/30/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the BPA Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Edith Green-Wenell Wyatt Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists graffitied the 911 Federal Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Pioneer Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Gus J. Solomon Courthouse.
06/01/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists graffitied The Pioneer Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied The Gus J Solomon Courthouse.
06/02/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the U.S. Custom House....

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.
A group of over 200 violent anarchists blocked access to the building and proceeded to launch aerial fireworks at federal property...

07/15/2020

Violent anarchists doxed members of federal law enforcement.
Violent anarchists attempted to damage the Hatfield Courthouse by throwing objects at it and spray painting it. Numerous fireworks were also lit.
Violent anarchists trespassed on federal property and destroyed a card reader at the Justice Center.

Notice they are all also "violent anarchists."  Apparently, painting graffiti is "violent."  Doxing is "violent."  Refusing to stay off federal property is "violent." Refusing to immediately comply with orders is "violent."

There are a couple of handfuls of actual violent acts cited.  But most of it wouldn't be considered "violent" in the usual sense--a direct physical threat to a person's body.

It is so heart-warming to see that our Department of Homeland Security--the agency tasked to defend our country against terrorists and such--are spending their precious time defending government buildings from taggers.    But, hey, we gotta keep our country safe from "violent anarchists." 

[DonaldD]

I'm trying to figure out how they identified the perpetrators in each case as "anarchists"... Did they all have membership cards? Was the graffiti exclusively and consistently anarchist slogans and symbols?  Did the AFI (I'm calling this new arm of the federal government security apparatus the Armed Federal Incognitos) in each case listed make an "arrest" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) and upon "interrogation" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) did the "anarchists" confess their anarchism?

How much graffiti would it take to level a courthouse, TheDaemon? And I guess, from your silence on the topic, you are fine with masked, unnamed and untrackable agents of the federal government driving around, grabbing people and sticking them in unmarked vehicles, right?

[TheDrake]

It's going to make for some great movies. Have you ever seen "In the Name of the Father"?

[Fenring]

I think the gist is that anyone who is is disorderly and non-compliant is by definition an anarchist, which in this case is likely a synonym for "disobedient troublemaker". I'd guess it's the same mentality certain police officers have in regard to citizens who do anything other than immediately and subserviently comply with commands.

[DonaldD]

That's why this joke was funny...

[Wayward Son]

Here's an account of a couple that were taken in by these unidentified Federal officers in unmarked vehicles:

In the early hours of July 15, after a night spent protesting at the Multnomah County Justice Center and Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse, Mark Pettibone and his friend Conner O’Shea decided to head home.

It had been a calm night compared to most protesting downtown. By 2 a.m. law enforcement hadn’t used any tear gas and, with only a few exceptions, both the Portland Police Bureau and federal law enforcement officers had stayed out of sight.

A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.

“So that was terrifying to hear,” Pettibone said.

They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.

“I see guys in camo,” O’Shea said. “Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, ‘Oh *censored*. I don’t know who you are or what you want with us.’”

Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off...

But interviews conducted by OPB show officers are also detaining people on Portland streets who aren’t near federal property, nor is it clear that all of the people being arrested have engaged in criminal activity. Demonstrators like O’Shea and Pettibone said they think they were targeted by federal officers for simply wearing black clothing in the area of the demonstration.

O’Shea said he ran when he saw people wearing camouflage jump out of an unmarked vehicle. He said he hid when a second unmarked van pursued him.

Video shot by O’Shea and provided to OPB shows a dark screen as O’Shea narrates the scene. Metadata from the video confirms the time and place of the protesters’ account.

“Feds are driving around, grabbing people off the streets,” O’Shea said on the video. “I didn’t do anything *censored*ing wrong. I’m recording this. I had to let somebody know that this is what happens.”

Pettibone did not escape the federal officers.

“I am basically tossed into the van,” Pettibone said. “And I had my beanie pulled over my face so I couldn’t see and they held my hands over my head.”

Pettibone and O’Shea both said they couldn’t think of anything they might have done to end up targeted by law enforcement. They attend protests regularly but they said they aren’t “instigators.” They don’t spray paint buildings, shine laser pointers at officers or do anything else other than attend protests, which law enforcement have regularly deemed “unlawful assemblies.”

Blinded by his hat, in an unmarked minivan full of armed people dressed in camouflage and body armor who hadn’t identified themselves, Pettibone said he was driven around downtown before being unloaded inside a building. He wouldn’t learn until after his release that he had been inside the federal courthouse.
“It was basically a process of facing many walls and corners as they patted me down and took my picture and rummaged through my belongings,” Pettibone said. “One of them said, ‘This is a whole lot of nothing.’”

Pettibone said he was put into a cell. Soon after, two officers came in to read him his Miranda rights. They didn’t tell him why he was being arrested. He said they asked him if he wanted to waive his rights and answer some questions, but Pettibone declined and said he wanted a lawyer. The interview was terminated, and about 90 minutes later he was released. He said he did not receive any paperwork, citation or record of his arrest.

“I just happened to be wearing black on a sidewalk in downtown Portland at the time,” Pettibone said. “And that apparently is grounds for detaining me.”

Just imagine the government doing this at the next rally for Confederate statues.  Men in camouflage and body armor picking up anyone who looks like a neo-Nazi and tossing them in unmarked vans.  How well do you think that would go on before going downhill fast?  Before Hannity and company decry this as actions of a police state and call for the removal of the President?

We have know for a while that Trump is a bully.  Now he's instructed DHS to be bullies and thugs for him. And Republicans are just fine with that. 

[TheDeamon]

Here's an account of a couple that were taken in by these unidentified Federal officers in unmarked vehicles:

In the early hours of July 15, after a night spent protesting at the Multnomah County Justice Center and Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse, Mark Pettibone and his friend Conner O’Shea decided to head home.

Totally not connected in any way to things happening at the protest location.

It had been a calm night compared to most protesting downtown. By 2 a.m. law enforcement hadn’t used any tear gas and, with only a few exceptions, both the Portland Police Bureau and federal law enforcement officers had stayed out of sight.

Interesting turn of phrase there for defining a "calm night" and conspicuously absent is mention of what the protesters were doing.

Problem with the previously linked DHS statement is it leaves some ambiguity if activities on the morning of the 15th are part of the 14th, or 15th... But in any case:

07/14/2020
Violent anarchists set a container of liquid on fire at the Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists jumped a fence and attempted to breach the Edith Green Federal Building.
Violent anarchists assaulted federal law enforcement officers with cans and other hard objects while they attempted to unblock the entrance of the Edith Green Federal Building.
07/15/2020
Violent anarchists doxed members of federal law enforcement.
Violent anarchists attempted to damage the Hatfield Courthouse by throwing objects at it and spray painting it. Numerous fireworks were also lit.
Violent anarchists trespassed on federal property and destroyed a card reader at the Justice Center.

Going by "law enforcement officers had stayed out of sight" we'll assume it was the second option. Events on the morning of the 15th are being described as happening on the 15th. In any case, neither night appears to actually conform to OPB's claim of "a calm night" unless you're wanting to twist things around "compared to most protesting downtown(in recent nights)."

So we have federal officials, who based on events of the prior night have decided that apprehending perpetrators on site is high risk and have now decided to try to track them until they leave the protest site and are in a venue where apprehension can be done safely for all involved.

A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.
...
They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.

“I see guys in camo,” O’Shea said. “Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, ‘Oh *censored*. I don’t know who you are or what you want with us.’”

Also absent from the text description, but from reports regarding the video(which I admittedly haven't seen, but is also lacking in the article) indicate that the Uniforms were marked so they knew which agency was grabbing them, even if the people weren't wearing name tags.

Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off...

Yes, because cruising around in marked vehicles in an area where protesters have a history of swarming and destroying marked vehicles is a good idea.

But interviews conducted by OPB show officers are also detaining people on Portland streets who aren’t near federal property, nor is it clear that all of the people being arrested have engaged in criminal activity. Demonstrators like O’Shea and Pettibone said they think they were targeted by federal officers for simply wearing black clothing in the area of the demonstration.

More spin, and again, they've being exceedingly vague about the criteria they're using. What exactly constitutes "not near federal propetry" 3 blocks, 4 blocks, 1 mile? I also like how they've playing the "haven't engaged in criminal activity" while ignoring the matter that "They may have met the description of the people they were looking for at the time." You know, black beanies, black face mask, black shirt, black pants, right height, general build, etc... And having been tracked leaving the area where the crime occurred. It's like probable cause isn't a thing for law enforcement..

O’Shea said he ran when he saw people wearing camouflage jump out of an unmarked vehicle. He said he hid when a second unmarked van pursued him.

Because running from uniformed law enforcement is always a good way to establish your innocence.

Pettibone and O’Shea both said they couldn’t think of anything they might have done to end up targeted by law enforcement. They attend protests regularly but they said they aren’t “instigators.” They don’t spray paint buildings, shine laser pointers at officers or do anything else other than attend protests, which law enforcement have regularly deemed “unlawful assemblies.”

Yeah, "We've done nothing wrong except intentionally dress like the people who are doing something wrong, and routinely showing up on the nights where they're committing those crimes." And also ignore that whole matter of what was often happening to cause the protest to be deemed unlawful.

Blinded by his hat, in an unmarked minivan full of armed people dressed in camouflage and body armor who hadn’t identified themselves, Pettibone said he was driven around downtown before being unloaded inside a building. He wouldn’t learn until after his release that he had been inside the federal courthouse.

Except their body armor does identify their agency. But anyhow..
 

“It was basically a process of facing many walls and corners as they patted me down and took my picture and rummaged through my belongings,” Pettibone said. “One of them said, ‘This is a whole lot of nothing.’”

Probable cause. He himself admits he was in the area where a crime occurred(which the reported obfuscates), that he was dressed like the perpertrators, and was apprehended after leaving the protest site. But they did correctly identify him as having been a protester. I'd be upset about this if they were snatching people who were unconnected to the protests... But at roughly 2:30 AM and less than 2 blocks away, that's going to be hard to achieve I'd think.

Pettibone said he was put into a cell. Soon after, two officers came in to read him his Miranda rights. They didn’t tell him why he was being arrested. He said they asked him if he wanted to waive his rights and answer some questions, but Pettibone declined and said he wanted a lawyer. The interview was terminated, and about 90 minutes later he was released. He said he did not receive any paperwork, citation or record of his arrest.

Happens more often than many people would like to think, he was "a person of interest" and (correctly) identified as being non-cooperative, he was brough in, positively identified, evidence was examined, determined he wasn't the guy they were looking for, and let go.

But hey, at least he and the reporter are honest here:

“I just happened to be wearing black on a sidewalk in downtown Portland at the time,” Pettibone said. “And that apparently is grounds for detaining me.”

No @#$& maybe next time you decide to attend one of those protests, wear something that sets you apart from the lunatics trying to tear stuff down. Rather than dressing like decoy for them.

Just imagine the government doing this at the next rally for Confederate statues.  Men in camouflage and body armor picking up anyone who looks like a neo-Nazi and tossing them in unmarked vans.  How well do you think that would go on before going downhill fast?  Before Hannity and company decry this as actions of a police state and call for the removal of the President?

Depends, there are shades of nuance here that wildly skew things against the protester in this case.

How many neo-Nazi rallies involved property destruction of vandalism? Or attempts there-of? How many of them happen between the hours of 11PM and 2AM? how many of those rallies involve everyone wearing virtually identical clothing and face coverings?

[TheDeamon]

Or to sum up that OPB article another way in Onion/BabylonBee satirical fashion:

Man picked up by police on roadside 1/4 mile away from Cross Burning on Friday night claims he is being profiled due to having been wearing white bedsheets with eyeholes at the time of his detention.

[DonaldD]

I see you are still absolutely fine with masked, anonymous jackbooted stormtroopers picking up people and whisking them away in unmarked vehicles, TheDaemon.

As an aside, wearing black while protesting is not probable cause for anything.  It's weird that you don't care about constitutionally protected rights, TheDaemon. 

[TheDeamon]

I see you are still absolutely fine with masked, anonymous jackbooted stormtroopers picking up people and whisking them away in unmarked vehicles, TheDaemon.

If it was random people, I'd have problems. Except it wasn't random:

Probable cause. He himself admits he was in the area where a crime occurred(which the reported obfuscates), that he was dressed like the perpertrators, and was apprehended after leaving the protest site. But they did correctly identify him as having been a protester. I'd be upset about this if they were snatching people who were unconnected to the protests... But at roughly 2:30 AM and less than 2 blocks away, that's going to be hard to achieve I'd think.

Pettibone said he was put into a cell. Soon after, two officers came in to read him his Miranda rights. They didn’t tell him why he was being arrested. He said they asked him if he wanted to waive his rights and answer some questions, but Pettibone declined and said he wanted a lawyer. The interview was terminated, and about 90 minutes later he was released. He said he did not receive any paperwork, citation or record of his arrest.

Happens more often than many people would like to think, he was "a person of interest" and (correctly) identified as being non-cooperative, he was brought in, positively identified, evidence was examined, determined he wasn't the guy they were looking for, and let go.

But hey, at least he and the reporter are honest here:

“I just happened to be wearing black on a sidewalk in downtown Portland at the time,” Pettibone said. “And that apparently is grounds for detaining me.”

No @#$& maybe next time you decide to attend one of those protests, wear something that sets you apart from the lunatics trying to tear stuff down. Rather than dressing like decoy for them.

As an aside, wearing black while protesting is not probable cause for anything.  It's weird that you don't care about constitutionally protected rights, TheDaemon.

It is probable cause when you match to description of the person who is either known or believed to have committed a crime, and you are in proximity of the crime scene. It becomes triply relevant when you also acknowledge you were in proximity to the crime scene at the time the crime occurred.

News flash: Identifying people in identical masks and clothing is hard.