Printable View
Targeted violence by trump's goons that he is sending to cities where they are not wanted. A dictator's credo to incite more violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
"Federal authorities are swooping in and do whatever they want to do without any cooperation and coordination with state and local authorities is extraordinary outside the context of civil war"..... Michael Dorf, a professional of constitutional law at Cornell University is quoted as saying.
And apparently they have abandoned their original supposed mission of protecting federal buildings and are now just generally terrorizing people in Portland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/u...on-courts.html
Trump may think this faux ‘law and order’ shtick is a great reelection strategy but other than his hardcore supporters I don’t think many people are going to be impressed as it comes to a city near them.
Former Security Secretary Tom Ridge sums up any rational observer's take on Trump's storm troopers:
...Ridge stressed that the Department of Homeland Security "was established to protect America from the ever-present threat of global terrorism. It was not established to be the President's personal militia. It would be a cold day in hell before I would give consent to a unilateral, uninvited intervention into one of my cities," he continued. (CNN/Sirius)
But it's certainly mobilizing Portland's middle class "Wall of Moms," dads, and vets, from what I see in my inbox.
Which comes first, federal goons or violent anarchists? Which side do you think most Democrats support?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I don't think it matters your political affiliation. trump can be included in either tribulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Wait, aren't those the same thing? Unmarked "police" shooting bystanders in the face, ignoring the laws* and our Constitution which allows for peaceful protests. That sounds like a violent anarchist.Quote:
Which comes first, federal goons or violent anarchists?
* Atty General Barr making new pronouncements to allow this type of activity doesn't count as a "law" imo.
Have you seen the damage from these "peaceful protests", the fires, graffiti and destruction, not to mention possibly 3 blind police officers and another attacked with a hammer? If that is the new definition of peaceful protests I'd hate to see a riot.Quote:
Originally Posted by herbgeek
The damage was done, in many cases, by white supremists looking to cause havoc. The majority of people were looking to protest peacefully. It is another way to divide the country... don't ya know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Oh I suspect there may be some of that, but havoc seems to be the norm for all involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
That is not true. There were peaceful protests here. After the majority of the people left... the skinheads and those wanting to cause trouble came out and did damage. I think most people just want to be heard. There obviously is a divisive faction wanting to taint the whole concept of the protests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan