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

[DonaldD]

When Floyd resisted arrest and threw himself on the ground, a small, timid, and untrained police officer kneeled on his neck and killed him.

It's things like this that make people wonder whether you are actually a parody of a right-wing true believer.  I admit, the rest of that post is almost as questionable, but this is probably the most over-the-top bit.

[wmLambert]

wmLambert, you become a bigger caricature of yourself with every new post. From the preposterous statement that no one thinks protests are about racial justice, to the fact that in addition to your wild charac terization of the Floyd incident itself, to the concept that segregation would return with Democrats in power.

Still using "Laughter by Intimidation"? You are wrong and know it, but can't admit it. The AntiFa rioters are not there to honor George Floyd. They are only there to attack Trump. They are the same as the KKK who were the military arm of the Democrat Party. Same MO - same masters.

[DonaldD]

Unless Trump is a fascist, the anti-fascists aren't there to attack him even metaphorically.

[TheDrake]

wmLambert, you become a bigger caricature of yourself with every new post. From the preposterous statement that no one thinks protests are about racial justice, to the fact that in addition to your wild charac terization of the Floyd incident itself, to the concept that segregation would return with Democrats in power.

Still using "Laughter by Intimidation"? You are wrong and know it, but can't admit it. The AntiFa rioters are not there to honor George Floyd. They are only there to attack Trump. They are the same as the KKK who were the military arm of the Democrat Party. Same MO - same masters.

And they are all antifa rioters, right? "No one" in the crowd is after racial justice, they're just out to get Trump and using this as an excuse.

[TheDeamon]

Still using "Laughter by Intimidation"? You are wrong and know it, but can't admit it. The AntiFa rioters are not there to honor George Floyd. They are only there to attack Trump. They are the same as the KKK who were the military arm of the Democrat Party. Same MO - same masters.

Pretty safe bet the clowns that come out after 10PM are AntiFa, although proving it is another matter. It isn't like they carry membership cards around.

And if you've bothered to pay attention to the History of AntiFa, they were anti-Fascist and anti-Liberal. AntiFa was a communist group in 1932/33, and the reconstituted AntiFa in europe from the 1950's on has continued to remain a communist front group. There is no reason to believe that AntiFa's "core" in the United States is anything but Communist in its nature and backers.

The Democrats are backing them as they share overlapping goals and assume "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" with these guys, but plenty of the protesters on the streets of Portland have made it clear the Democrats are next on their list, you poke into the right corners of the web with regards to AntiFa and they're not shy about the sentiment there either. They've even already reportedly started going after the homes of (nominally Democratic) city council members in Seattle. The intimidation and enforced compliance with AntiFa is coming for those who live in the areas where they have significant presence.

In that respect, AntiFa has a lot in common with the early incarnations of the KKK. AntiFa is going to run anybody they consider a threat out of the areas they think they control, killing people is probably on the table, but getting them to run away is preferable. Law enforcement, especially federal is at the top of that list of things they want gone, followed by local law enforcement, and then the heads of local government, who won't be able to get any effective(or sympathetic) police protection if they've de-fanged their local police already.

[TheDeamon]

And they are all antifa rioters, right? "No one" in the crowd is after racial justice, they're just out to get Trump and using this as an excuse.

Anyone who is protesting after 10PM in Portland that thinks they're protesting for BLM while doing nothing to stop the thugs next to them is being "a useful idiot." End of story.

[rightleft22]

And they are all antifa rioters, right? "No one" in the crowd is after racial justice, they're just out to get Trump and using this as an excuse.

Anyone who is protesting after 10PM in Portland that thinks they're protesting for BLM while doing nothing to stop the thugs next to them is being "a useful idiot." End of story.

Sadly that's true, and unfortunately those who oppose racial change, or change of any sort, only need one bad example to undo the work of the many.
Funny sad that the same people will use the bad apple excuses to also justify the keeping to the status quo and avoid talk of change.

Just as it takes 99 positive 'at a boys' to overcome a single negative 'you suck', change is a object at rest difficult to get moving. Of course that is the fear, once change is placed in motion how do you stop it, best to keep it at rest.

[DonaldD]

In that respect, AntiFa has a lot in common with the early incarnations of the KKK.

The Godwin is strong in this thread... aside from the fact that Antifa in North America is a belief system and not an organization, the KKK came from a position of power - government officials, law enforcement officers, and yes, farmers and shopkeepers too - whereas the Antifa bogeyman is made up of non-organized underemployed and dispossessed people primarily.

As for the attempt to tar the Democratic Party with supporting Antifa?  From Pelosi to Bernie Sanders (OK, he may not actually belong to the Democratic Party) they have denounced Antifa violent tactics.

[TheDeamon]

As for the attempt to tar the Democratic Party with supporting Antifa?  From Pelosi to Bernie Sanders (OK, he may not actually belong to the Democratic Party) they have denounced Antifa violent tactics.

Minnesota AG prior to becoming the AG:

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/01/04/keith-ellison-antifa/

(Portland Mayor) Wheeler getting BBC attention regarding AntiFa, although he wasn't explicitly supporting them then either:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849035

We could also get into the Democrat Governor condemning Trump, not the protesters, or the Oregon (Democrat) AG filing a suit against the Federal Government on behalf of the (AntiFa) protesters which has been dismissed by the judge?

[TheDeamon]

Also speaking of that suit that the Oregon AG brought and had dismissed due to lack of standing?

BLM and the "Wall of Moms" among others have decided they do have standing, and are filing their own suit in Federal Court now.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/509257-wall-of-moms-black-lives-matter-sue-trump-admin-over-portland

So I guess those guys with blow torches, power tools, crow bars, and hammers at those protests aren't AntiFa after all, they're actually Black Lives Matter.

[Wayward Son]

Meanwhile, some white supremists apparently have been instigating violence while pretending to be Antifa, just to make things a little more interesting. 

[TheDeamon]

Funny thing is AntiFa and BLM protesters themselves are amazingly racist, even without the more typical white supremacist groups running around.

[DonaldD]

As for the attempt to tar the Democratic Party with supporting Antifa?  From Pelosi to Bernie Sanders (OK, he may not actually belong to the Democratic Party) they have denounced Antifa violent tactics.

Minnesota AG prior to becoming the AG:

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/01/04/keith-ellison-antifa/

(Portland Mayor) Wheeler getting BBC attention regarding AntiFa, although he wasn't explicitly supporting them then either:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849035

We could also get into the Democrat Governor condemning Trump, not the protesters, or the Oregon (Democrat) AG filing a suit against the Federal Government on behalf of the (AntiFa) protesters which has been dismissed by the judge?

I made a statement that the Democrats have denounced Antifa violent tactics, and you respond with... somebody holding up a book about antifascism, and a link to an article where the mayor is not quoted as supporting Antifa violent tactics, but for not sufficiently supporting the police...

As for your continued conflation of "Antifa" with "all protesters"  - guess what?  At probably every protest for the past 15 years, there have been anarchist or black-block or equivalent agitators.  The vast majority of protesters, however, are not associated with them.  You seem to want to equate all people exercising their first amendment rights to the small number of violent agitators.  Why?

[DonaldD]

Funny thing is AntiFa and BLM protesters themselves are amazingly racist, even without the more typical white supremacist groups running around.

This is a generalization that is impossible to support, especially since you think all of the protesters, in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands, are all Antifa.  Did you take a survey?  Did that survey show even a significant minority of protesters are racist?

That statement is as mouth breathy as those put forth by left-wing radicals who decry all Republicans as racists.

[TheDrake]

Funny thing is AntiFa and BLM protesters themselves are amazingly racist, even without the more typical white supremacist groups running around.

Since AntiFa is overwhelmingly white, and BLM a greater proportion of black people, are they being racist on each other? I don't recall any clashes between AntiFa and BLM.

[TheDeamon]

Funny thing is AntiFa and BLM protesters themselves are amazingly racist, even without the more typical white supremacist groups running around.

This is a generalization that is impossible to support, especially since you think all of the protesters, in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands, are all Antifa.  Did you take a survey?  Did that survey show even a significant minority of protesters are racist?

That statement is as mouth breathy as those put forth by left-wing radicals who decry all Republicans as racists.

False equivalence.
Portland is Known to have a large AntiFa presence, as the Proud Boys vs AntiFa fights in recent years demonstrated.

"Large AntiFa presence" does not mean everyone present at a protest in Portland is AntiFa, but it does mean that depending on the issue, AntiFa is going to be present in numbers.

As to the anti-racist protesters being racist? Look at how they frequently treat minorities who disagrees with them. They get called every racially loaded term in the book. That isn't even touching on the black LEOs.

[DonaldD]

Funny thing is AntiFa and BLM protesters themselves are amazingly racist, even without the more typical white supremacist groups running around.

This is a generalization that is impossible to support, especially since you think all of the protesters, in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands, are all Antifa.  Did you take a survey?  Did that survey show even a significant minority of protesters are racist?

That statement is as mouth breathy as those put forth by left-wing radicals who decry all Republicans as racists.

False equivalence.
Portland is Known to have a large AntiFa presence, as the Proud Boys vs AntiFa fights in recent years demonstrated.

"Large AntiFa presence" does not mean everyone present at a protest in Portland is AntiFa, but it does mean that depending on the issue, AntiFa is going to be present in numbers.

As to the anti-racist protesters being racist? Look at how they frequently treat minorities who disagrees with them. They get called every racially loaded term in the book. That isn't even touching on the black LEOs.

Making generalizations about things based on your social media feed and preferred media is an exercise in confirmation bias.  You are so sure that Antifa is in Portland, and before that at every other protest, and in numbers more significant than non-Antifa protesters... and all this certainty based on images that have been curated for you specifically to provoke exactly this reaction.

You cannot believe Antifa is not a huge problem exactly because you believe Antifa is a huge problem.

[TheDeamon]

Portland is Known to have a large AntiFa presence, as the Proud Boys vs AntiFa fights in recent years demonstrated.

"Large AntiFa presence" does not mean everyone present at a protest in Portland is AntiFa, but it does mean that depending on the issue, AntiFa is going to be present in numbers.

As to the anti-racist protesters being racist? Look at how they frequently treat minorities who disagrees with them. They get called every racially loaded term in the book. That isn't even touching on the black LEOs.

Making generalizations about things based on your social media feed and preferred media is an exercise in confirmation bias.  You are so sure that Antifa is in Portland, and before that at every other protest, and in numbers more significant than non-Antifa protesters... and all this certainty based on images that have been curated for you specifically to provoke exactly this reaction.

You cannot believe Antifa is not a huge problem exactly because you believe Antifa is a huge problem.

Here's your problem with regards to Portland. Only a year ago, AntiFa was literally brawling with the ProudBoys in the streets of Portland, in large numbers no less. AntiFa "won" those fights as well, the Proud Boys packed up and left.

If AntiFa isn't behind what's going on in Portland right now, then where did they go?
You're telling me a group that was vibrant and thriving for several years under the Trump presidency just spontaneously disintegrated in the past year because of what? Covid19?

As AntiFa doesn't seem to be fighting these Portland rioters in the streets this time around, it is logical to conclude the rioters in the streets of Portland are AntiFa.

Or are you claiming that the BBC report I linked to earlier in regards to Mayor Wheeler, which is from 2019, somehow wasn't actually talking about AntiFa being present in Portland?

[rightleft22]

As AntiFa doesn't seem to be fighting these Portland rioters in the streets this time around, it is logical to conclude the rioters in the streets of Portland are AntiFa.

Portland Librarians don't seem to be fighting theses Portland rioters, its logical to conclude the rioters in the streets of Portland are Librarians.

[TheDeamon]

As AntiFa doesn't seem to be fighting these Portland rioters in the streets this time around, it is logical to conclude the rioters in the streets of Portland are AntiFa.

Portland Librarians don't seem to be fighting theses Portland rioters, its logical to conclude the rioters in the streets of Portland are Librarians.

I was unaware that the Librarian Association of Portland has had a recent history of violent street confrontations with those they oppose. Could you provide some evidence to back up that claim?

I stand by the reasoning that since Portland AntiFa has both the history, and outlook of physical confrontation of those they disagree with. That the only reasonable conclusion can be one of three things is going on at the Federal buildings in Portland where it concerns AntiFa:
1) It is AntiFa attacking the Federal Buildings.
2) AntiFa agrees with attacking with the Federal Buildings. (In which case, see #1)
3) AntiFa no longer exists in Portland. (I don't believe that)

[TheDrake]

Of course people who identify as Antifa (or more accurately black bloc) are involved and all for it. It is highly unclear if all or most of people attacking federal buildings identify as such, and also highly unclear if all or most of the people merely in the vicinity identify as such. Or that Antifa is in any way organizing and leading any protests or other actions. Anarchists aren't really very big on organizing and leadership.

[rightleft22]

As AntiFa doesn't seem to be fighting these Portland rioters in the streets this time around, it is logical to conclude the rioters in the streets of Portland are AntiFa.

Portland Librarians don't seem to be fighting theses Portland rioters, its logical to conclude the rioters in the streets of Portland are Librarians.

I was unaware that the Librarian Association of Portland has had a recent history of violent street confrontations with those they oppose. Could you provide some evidence to back up that claim?

I stand by the reasoning that since Portland AntiFa has both the history, and outlook of physical confrontation of those they disagree with. That the only reasonable conclusion can be one of three things is going on at the Federal buildings in Portland where it concerns AntiFa:
1) It is AntiFa attacking the Federal Buildings.
2) AntiFa agrees with attacking with the Federal Buildings. (In which case, see #1)
3) AntiFa no longer exists in Portland. (I don't believe that)

I find the reasoning weak. 
I guess its possible but it seems to me that the AntiFa label is being used as a bogyman distraction so unless you have clear facts on AntiFa membership and actions I'm not convinced by your reasoning.  I admit I know nothing about Antifa

I also don't think we should be using the label to distract from the very real issues and concerns behind the protest. Of course such distractions have work quite well in the past and I suspect they will work now in order to keep the status quo.

[TheDeamon]

I guess its possible but it seems to me that the AntiFa label is being used as a bogyman distraction so unless you have clear facts on AntiFa membership and actions I'm not convinced by your reasoning.  I admit I know nothing about Antifa

That it's been getting attention in here since 2016, that's not fully our fault. Coverage of AntiFa activities in Portland was largely constrained to either local press or right-wing media, with it sometimes getting national/international attention as seen with the BBC report in 2019. At this point, if you're oblivious about AntiFa it's because you prefer to be, and no amount of evidence any of us present you is likely to be worth the effort. So you're on your own.

I also don't think we should be using the label to distract from the very real issues and concerns behind the protest. Of course such distractions have work quite well in the past and I suspect they will work now in order to keep the status quo.

The presumes a false choice dichotomy. It's almost as if you believe Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Reform is incapable of running on a different track than condemning the rioters in Portland and elsewhere. I reject that premise completely.

I can condemn the people trying to destroy/damage the Federal Building in Portland while working towards police reforms. Although it's pointless during an election year on the Federal Level as while the Republicans would love to make reforms happen, the Dems won't meet them halfway as they don't want to "give Trump that victory" so the only "compromise" they'll accept are poison pill offerings to the Republicans.

[Wayward Son]

It's not so much we are ignoring AntiFa, but rather don't look at it the way you do.

AntiFa is a loosely knit "organization" (if you can even call it that) of people who decide to man the frontline against Fascists.  There is no membership, no leadership (AFAIK), nothing beyond people who call each other up and decide to dress in black.  Their only distinguishing factors are their dress (which isn't that distinct) and their pledge to fight fascists.

Compare this to simple rioters, looters and guys who just like to burn things.

When the right-wing media says that AntiFa is causing the trouble, how do you know it is AntiFa, rather than some random troublemakers?  In fact, from what I understand of them, unless they determined that Federal buildings are Fascist, they would not target them at all.  It seems to be that right-wing media is using them as a boogey-man to get people scared that there is some grand conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government with these kids, doubtlessly with the boogey-man George Soros behind it all!

The only reason AntiFa has come to our attention is because they are the only ones who will meet the violence from the Right head-on.  Which scares the Right.

So unless your evidence shows a grand structure to this "organization," follows the money (assuming there is any), and provides the documents that are sent to the shock-troops, you're right, no amount of evidence will convince us.  Because it isn't really evidence.

[rightleft22]

I guess its possible but it seems to me that the AntiFa label is being used as a bogyman distraction so unless you have clear facts on AntiFa membership and actions I'm not convinced by your reasoning.  I admit I know nothing about Antifa

That it's been getting attention in here since 2016, that's not fully our fault. Coverage of AntiFa activities in Portland was largely constrained to either local press or right-wing media, with it sometimes getting national/international attention as seen with the BBC report in 2019. At this point, if you're oblivious about AntiFa it's because you prefer to be, and no amount of evidence any of us present you is likely to be worth the effort. So you're on your own.

I also don't think we should be using the label to distract from the very real issues and concerns behind the protest. Of course such distractions have work quite well in the past and I suspect they will work now in order to keep the status quo.

The presumes a false choice dichotomy. It's almost as if you believe Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Reform is incapable of running on a different track than condemning the rioters in Portland and elsewhere. I reject that premise completely.

I can condemn the people trying to destroy/damage the Federal Building in Portland while working towards police reforms. Although it's pointless during an election year on the Federal Level as while the Republicans would love to make reforms happen, the Dems won't meet them halfway as they don't want to "give Trump that victory" so the only "compromise" they'll accept are poison pill offerings to the Republicans.

I agree its a false choice dichotomy yet history has shown that when it comes to such protests the tactic of distracting by focus on the 'law breakers' works to maintaining the status quo.

As for "the Republicans would love to make reforms happen" I see no evidence of that.

[TheDeamon]

As for "the Republicans would love to make reforms happen" I see no evidence of that.

The Senate passed a bill, the House rejected it as it didn't have their poison pills and of course because "it didn't go far enough" so I guess the perfect is the enemy of the good?

[Wayward Son]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.  So is the inadequate, the band-aid and the token.

[TheDeamon]

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/portlands-wall-of-moms-crumbles-amid-online-allegations-by-former-partner-dont-shoot-pdx.html

Portland Wall of Moms, a group formed in recent weeks and quickly recognized as a staple of nightly downtown protests, was accused publicly Wednesday of “anti-Blackness” by leaders of an existing, Black-led community group.

Wall of Moms, whose members said they aimed to support and protect other Black Lives Matter protesters near the fence in front of the federal courthouse, announced Friday that its white leadership had rescinded their positions to allow women of color to be in charge. New leaders announced Friday include Teressa Raiford, executive director of Don’t Shoot Portland, Demetria Hester and Danialle James.

But less than a week later, Don’t Shoot Portland took to Instagram to urge people against supporting the Wall of Moms, saying that it was no longer working with the moms group.

“The lies are finally clear and we are sad but ultimately not surprised that anti-Blackness showed its ugly head,” read the post published on Wednesday by Don’t Shoot Portland, a local Black Lives Matter and mutual aid group founded in 2014.

[TheDeamon]

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

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.

[TheDeamon]

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

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.

[TheDrake]

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".

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

Attribute it to whatever you want, the point is that you quoted all of the article except for this.

Back downtown, just after midnight, the majority of the crowd that had gathered outside the federal courthouse embarked on a march through Downtown and the Pearl District. The large group shrunk during the nearly two hour walk. When it returned to Southwest 3rd Avenue, the crowd consisted of about 100 people who slowly drifted off into the city over the next hour.
The march was peaceful and Portland Police did not interact with the crowd of people downtown.

To me that seems at least a little misleading as you assemble your narrative. Nothing in here supports your theory that they just went in search of a soft target. There was no alternate target to assault.

[DonaldD]

The majority of the demonstrators cannot be peaceful.  If they seem to be, they are only "peaceful protesters".

[yossarian22c]

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.

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?

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.

[TheDeamon]

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)

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

This is a peculiar point. While I can see the logic of your side of it - that avoiding provocative actions is a good thing - it's very hard to get away from the fact that it being provocative is a problem. It may be Trump's fault that he sent federal officers, but it's not his fault that the presence of federal officers would cause violence. That shouldn't really be true, should it? Especially since this was originally supposedly about corruption and racism in local PD. If I'm having a temper tantrum in public and an officer tries to get me to calm down and clear the street, sure, that may escalate my tantrum if I don't want to be interfered with, and sure, he could just leave me alone. But then again, I'm the one having the tantrum and in the position of being so easily riled up, and I'm doing so in public and disturbing others. Maybe I'm even having a tantrum for a very good reason, but that doesn't somehow excuse if I mouth off at a police officer or throw stuff at him. None of my personal BS - however justified or right - gives me carte blanche to attack an officer, nor does it somehow make it his fault if he takes steps to get me to settle down.

I find the logic bizarre that Trump could be said to be inciting violence by sending in officers to defend against mob actions. Maybe the mob is totally right, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he's not the one who made them a mob in the first place. Their propensity to escalate just because someone they don't like is in the area is their own issue, not that of the rest of society.

[wmLambert]

...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)

One of the reason education has failed us is in teaching both history and logic. During the Vietnam era, when Cronkite lied about our embassies being overrun in the Tet Offensive, it alerted General Giap to the idea that he didn't need to fight soldiers - all he needed to do was use the US Media to carry water. That brought about the codification of guerillas only in front of the camera. As soon as the Klieg lights go off, the agitators go and hide behind their mothers' aprons. AntiFa is not just a loosely amalgamated group, they are the recipients of this new paradigm. Anyone can create a flash mob via internet and a simple request for idiot morons to gather. These people can be lured to a place for one purpose but be used for another. They seem too stupid to realize they are being used.

I, and others, focus on those few agitators who start the problems, but many here in this forum seem to focus on the idiot morons giving cover to the activists. The activists are probably loosely affiliated and often paid for their efforts. the larger percentage who give them cover are largely irrelevant. We know Soros has bragged about supporting the activists to the tune of several billion dollars, and the AntiFa "protestors" have also bragged about getting tattoos with their "Soros money." The same protestors have shown up at any demonstration anywhere in the country. The guy dressed in AntiFa black today in Washington, was also in Central Park as an Occupy Wall Street leader. We saw this happening way back during the 70's with Hubert Humphrey. Same people doing their worst.

[DonaldD]

It may be Trump's fault that he sent federal officers, but it's not his fault that the presence of federal officers would cause violence.

If I knew that my otherwise completely innocent action would likely lead to violence, then of course I would be at least partly responsible for the resulting violence. This isn't really up for debate, is it?  And if I planned on benefitting from the triggering of the violence that I knew would likely be the result, that makes it worse, although is itself a separate issue.

That doesn't mean the perpetrators of the violence are not themselves responsible for their own acts; of course they are.  But that doesn't magically absolve the president of his own bad actions.

[Fenring]

That doesn't mean the perpetrators of the violence are not themselves responsible for their own acts; of course they are.  But that doesn't magically absolve the president of his own bad actions.

That really depends on your confidence in that fact that Trump sent them knowing it would cause problems, and even because it would cause problems. That's a lot of bad faith, which may or may not be warranted (I find it difficult to make any determination about that).

But going back to a previous point:

If I knew that my otherwise completely innocent action would likely lead to violence, then of course I would be at least partly responsible for the resulting violence.

I think this is a bad universal rule of thumb. 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 I get hurt you might say "I told you so", and if I complain you might say "you were warned", but you can't say "you have to take responsibility for them getting violent". In that context, I do not. Even if I'm stirring the pot and I go to the post office just to test them they have complete responsibility for being in that state of mind and being willing to throw bottles at the post office.

It reminds me of the Ali G and Borat skits, where during the course of an 'interview' someone who say or do something bad. Some might argue that Baron Cohen was inciting these acts and statements, but I would argue that all he did was give them rope to hang themselves; their antics betrayed their own issues and he was just a catalyst to expose it. He was no more responsible than I was for watching the show. That they would say these things at all was 100% on them, and I have a difficult time seeing it differently for violent protesters. You can argue that any number of actions would 'set them off' and I'm sorry, but whatever sets them off is really their hang-up. Even if Trump is an idiot for sending the officers that really is a different matter from the fact that the mere presence of certain humans would make these protesters violent. That should not be a thing.

[Wayward Son]

That really depends on your confidence in that fact that Trump sent them knowing it would cause problems, and even because it would cause problems. That's a lot of bad faith, which may or may not be warranted (I find it difficult to make any determination about that).

The thing is, Fenring, if Trump didn't expect the Federal officers riling things up, then what was the purpose of sending them when he did?

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.

In this instance, he knew what he was doing and what he expected to happen.

[Fenring]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

Does that mean the anti-post-office protester who proceeds to go postal is not themselves responsible for their own actions?  Of course not.

Would you be held legally responsible?  Possibly, but not necessarily.  Clearly, the president sending shock troops into an area ostensibly to safeguard some buildings provides him with legal coverage; but that is not the same as the moral responsibility he bears for stirring the pot and the predictable escalations.

[Fenring]

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.

I believe your position hinges on this point, ok. I'd like to know if you'd make precisely the same argument for a woman walking past an angry protest at an abortion clinic. If she walks past the protest and they start being violent, she is absolutely responsible for the resulting violence, right?

[TheDeamon]

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?

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

I believe your position hinges on this point, ok. I'd like to know if you'd make precisely the same argument for a woman walking past an angry protest at an abortion clinic. If she walks past the protest and they start being violent, she is absolutely responsible for the resulting violence, right?

If a person going to, say, an abortion clinic, thought that the likely result of their action would be an escalation of violence by a mob of people present, or the likely torching of the clinic, and they chose to undertake that action, then yes.  This is self evident. 

Of course, in this hypothetical, the person has to have that expectation. Given that thousands of people have crossed past abortion clinic protesters without triggering explosive violence makes it a tough argument to make, since if thousands of other people do it safely, the likelihood of me triggering such a reaction is slim.

Whereas sending masked, unidentifiable stormtroopers into large protests where there is already friction is a pretty well known commodity.