FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Skybison on July 18, 2020, 12:36:51 am

Title: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 18, 2020, 12:36:51 am
So it looks like Trump is going full fascist. 

In Portland unidentified federal police with the Department of homeland security are going around in unmarked vans arresting people without charge on suspicion of being protesters and spiriting them to who knows where.  The government of the city and state are calling for them to be removed, but they aren't and Trump refuses to get them out.  It is a giant and blatant violation of the constitution and rule of law and an overt attack on freedom of speech.  If this is not stopped fast it may well be the end of American democracy.

“I think Portland is a test case.  They want to see what they can get away with before launching into other parts of the country.” Zakir Khan, a spokesman for the Oregon chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

“Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping.  Protesters in Portland have been shot in the head, swept away in unmarked cars, and repeatedly tear-gassed by uninvited and unwelcome federal agents. We won’t rest until they are gone.” Jann Carson, interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon

This is fucked.  We need to stand up now and make it clear we won't be cowed by violence.  Or there may not BE an election this November.

Remember what will happen if you don't speak out!
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2020, 12:46:49 am
Source?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 18, 2020, 12:58:27 am
Sorry forgot

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53453077

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/-terrifying-for-citizens-oregon-gov-reacts-to-trump-s-invasion-of-portland-87904837678
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Id82 on July 18, 2020, 01:01:01 am
November can't come fast enough. We're just three and a half months away from the election. Trump is tanking in the polls and he keeps getting worse and worse every day. He's alienating every voter except his cult. I bet he thinks that if his supporters are super enthusiastic to vote for him and they do enough voter suppression that it will some how defeat Biden.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 26, 2020, 04:38:28 pm
Well, I've looked into this, and honestly? From what I've read, idea that this is "fascism" relies on a lot of misinformation and wild speculation.

1. I've seen pictures of the feds, they're wearing patches. They're not "unidentified".

2. There's nothing unusual about law enforcement using unmarked vehicles.

3. We know that many if not all of the people arrested have been hit with federal charges.

4. Assuming this is some kind of "test run" for a power grab come November is premature at best.

Honestly, I'd say this federal response has been pretty restrained, all things considered. A lot of the things these rioters have been doing could very easily be classified as terrorism and/or treason. And since these state and local officials can't or won't stop them from ruining, threatening, or even ending lives... well, I'd say their complaints about "federal overreach" are lol-worthy. Their constituents shouldn't be paying them to let their cities burn. Far as I'm concerned, they're weak and incompetent at best and should be thrown out of office and replaced with people who can actually fulfill their duties.

All Rioters Are Bastards.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: davedan on July 26, 2020, 06:17:33 pm
Yes graffiti = Terrorism
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 26, 2020, 07:06:33 pm
Yes graffiti = Terrorism

They tried to burn down a federal courthouse. They attacked law enforcement officers with explosives. They set up an "autonomous zone" where two black teenagers were shot, one of them fatally, by their "security forces". If that's not terrorism, it's pretty fucking close. And even if it's not terrorism, who cares? It's terrible either way.

All Rioters Are Bastards.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 26, 2020, 07:07:27 pm
You got a source for your claims?  One you actually read?

Also the cops kill way more people then the rioters do, so they kind of seem like the bigger problem to me.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 26, 2020, 07:23:23 pm
You got a source for your claims?  One you actually read?

Also the cops kill way more people then the rioters do, so they kind of seem like the bigger problem to me.

U.S. charges 18 Portland protesters as it sends tactical police to Seattle (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-global-race-protests/u-s-charges-18-portland-protesters-as-it-sends-tactical-police-to-seattle-idUKKCN24P2KU)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_car#Unmarked_car (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_car#Unmarked_car)

Quote
Many forces also operate unmarked cars, in any of the roles shown above, but most frequently for the use of traffic enforcement or detectives. They have the advantage of not being immediately recognizable, and are a valuable tool in catching criminals while the crime is still taking place.[12] In the United States, unmarked cars are also used by federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Secret Service, but can be recognized by their U.S. government plates, however they often have normal license plates.[13][14] All unmarked cars bear license plates. Many U.S. jurisdictions use regular civilian issued license plates on unmarked cars, especially gang suppression and vice prevention units. Also see Q-car. Unmarked vehicles can range from normal patrol vehicles: Ford Explorer, Dodge Charger, Ford Crown Victoria, Chevrolet Impala, etc, to completely unmarked foreign vehicles: Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, etc.

As for "unidentified", the articles claiming such are proven wrong by the pictures they use:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdePriAXYAYeEvN?format=png&name=medium)

I think it's only fair to ask if you have a source for your claim.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: davedan on July 26, 2020, 10:02:36 pm
So can you read where that fellow is from? What is agency, and his name?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 12:03:27 am
So can you read where that fellow is from? What is agency, and his name?

You know, I could've sworn that goalpost was a little closer before.

Alright, maybe I'm being unfair since you weren't the one to ask for sources. Well, after running the picture through my hyper-advanced CSI software and pressing the "enhance" button a lot, I can recognize a US Border Patrol badge and the identification code (not sure what the correct term is) NZ39.

Why do you want his name, by the way? Something tells me not so you can go to his house in person and thank him.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: niam2023 on July 27, 2020, 12:24:09 am
That is ONE border patrol guy with a visible badge, and just because he has one does not mean others did.

And the fact is they ALSO threw people into cars, drove them off, gave no indication if their target was arrested or not, isolated them and only released when their target asked for a lawyer.

IMO, all of these fascist street thugs should be unmasked. People who know them deserve to know they're associating with what might as well be Hitler's SS.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 27, 2020, 12:44:44 am
You know, I could've sworn that goalpost was a little closer before.

Calling it a goalpost move assumes that the patch that you boxed means anything to the layman. He may as well be completely unmarked because I have not a single fucking clue what any of that means. And likely the same for almost everyone.

As for why we'd want his identification? Oh, I don't know, maybe for the same reason cops are supposed to give their badge numbers? So you can report them for misconduct? Fuck, you're stupid.

Another thing: Yes, unmarked vehicles are standard practice. Doesn't mean they should be.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: dpareja on July 27, 2020, 01:09:13 am
What's the difference between "wearing something that identifies them but that can't be understood by the average person if they even notice it" and "not wearing anything that identifies them"?

Oh, right. Nothing.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 27, 2020, 01:29:09 am
U.S. charges 18 Portland protesters as it sends tactical police to Seattle (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-global-race-protests/u-s-charges-18-portland-protesters-as-it-sends-tactical-police-to-seattle-idUKKCN24P2KU)

Did you read that link?  It seems to be that they only did that now that they've gotten attention and your link talks about how they are using wildly unnecessary force and needlessly escalating the situation against the will of the local governments and that Trump is threatening to do the same in other left wing cities.

Quote
I think it's only fair to ask if you have a source for your claim.

Sure here are some stats on the number of people killed by police in the USA
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Now how many hundreds of people are protesters killing each year?

Quote
ARAB (All Rioters Are Bastards)

... At this point I don't believe that's an accident.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 01:33:09 am
That is ONE border patrol guy with a visible badge, and just because he has one does not mean others did.

And the fact is they ALSO threw people into cars, drove them off, gave no indication if their target was arrested or not, isolated them and only released when their target asked for a lawyer.

IMO, all of these fascist street thugs should be unmasked. People who know them deserve to know they're associating with what might as well be Hitler's SS.

1. That's... not exactly a compelling argument. You can talk about hypothetical officers without visible badges all you like, but that's all they are: hypothetical.

2. Maybe I'm being ignorant, but from what I can tell, the only thing wrong in that statement is "gave no indication if their target was arrested or not", and that's assuming O'Shea (I think that's who you're talking about) isn't misremembering.

3. Aaand Godwin. Arresting violent insurrectionists =/= SS crimes against humanity. The fact that you can implicitly compare Trump to Hitler without fear of retribution just shows how wrongheaded your comparison is. Get a sense of proportion. The fact that you want these people "unmasked" so they can be demonized just shows why they were sent in without their names on their uniforms.

You know, I could've sworn that goalpost was a little closer before.

Calling it a goalpost move assumes that the patch that you boxed means anything to the layman. He may as well be completely unmarked because I have not a single fucking clue what any of that means. And likely the same for almost everyone.

As for why we'd want his identification? Oh, I don't know, maybe for the same reason cops are supposed to give their badge numbers? So you can report them for misconduct? Fuck, you're stupid.

Another thing: Yes, unmarked vehicles are standard practice. Doesn't mean they should be.

1. Who says you have to know what it means? I don't know the meanings behind license plate numbers, but I can still jot them down so the car can be identified.

2. I already hinted at this to squirrel boy and three-years-in-the-future, but this is the stated reason why they don't have their names on their uniforms (https://twitter.com/CBPMarkMorgan/status/1284206664913215491):

Quote
Our personnel are clearly marked as federal LEOs & have unique identifiers. You will not see names on their uniforms b/c these same violent criminals use this information to target them & their families, putting both at risk. As Acting Commissioner, I will not let that happen!

And reactions like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/7pqCqat.jpg)

Only strengthen his case.

3. Why not? Should cops not be allowed to go undercover?

What's the difference between "wearing something that identifies them but that can't be understood by the average person if they even notice it" and "not wearing anything that identifies them"?

Oh, right. Nothing.

Already addressed above. And I'd like to point out that it's more identification than what Antifa wears.

U.S. charges 18 Portland protesters as it sends tactical police to Seattle (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-global-race-protests/u-s-charges-18-portland-protesters-as-it-sends-tactical-police-to-seattle-idUKKCN24P2KU)

Did you read that link?  It seems to be that they only did that now that they've gotten attention and your link talks about how they are using wildly unnecessary force and needlessly escalating the situation against the will of the local governments and that Trump is threatening to do the same in other left wing cities.

Did you?

Quote
The federal forces have drawn criticism from Democrats and civil liberties groups who allege excessive force and federal overreach by President Donald Trump.

And if these people want the feds out of their cities, all they have to do is protect federal property. Then Trump will have no justification for deploying them.

Also, I can find articles (https://nypost.com/2020/07/16/portland-protester-charged-for-attacking-us-marshal-with-hammer/) about these people being hit with federal charges from over a week ago.

Quote
I think it's only fair to ask if you have a source for your claim.

Sure here are some stats on the number of people killed by police in the USA
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Now how many hundreds of people are protesters killing each year?

Why are you assuming every single one of these shootings was unjustified? And "well, these people kill more" is not a defense. I mean, if I shot some guy for looking at me funny, I wouldn't defend myself by saying some serial killer murdered more people.

Quote
ARAB (All Rioters Are Bastards)

... At this point I don't believe that's an accident.


If you're saying what I think you're saying... yeah, now I get how that can be taken the wrong way. I just wanted to make a parody of this:

All Republicans Are Bastards.

But I'd appreciate you not make any personal attacks on or assumptions about me. If you promise this will be the last time you cast aspersions on my motives, I promise to change it. Fair?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 27, 2020, 01:45:36 am
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d2/95/a1/d295a1c869354c7317e58acb84d0d536.jpg)

1. That's... not exactly a compelling argument. You can talk about hypothetical officers without visible badges all you like, but that's all they are: hypothetical.
You say after a single picture where the badge was unreadable proves that all the federal cops were wearing them when the reports say the opposite.  Not very convincing.

Quote
3. Aaand Godwin. Arresting violent insurrectionists =/= SS crimes against humanity. The fact that you can implicitly compare Trump to Hitler without fear of retribution just shows how wrongheaded your comparison is. Get a sense of proportion. The fact that you want these people "unmasked" so they can be demonized just shows why they were sent in without their names on their uniforms.

Trump makes campaign ads of himself as a genocidal supervillain killing his political opponents and is sending federal police to attack mostly non-violent protesters against the will of the local governments who are escalating things out of control with excessive force.  A bit of hyperbole over this isn't a big deal.

Quote
But if that's how you want to play it, why aren't Antifa members wearing badges with their names so they can be held accountable?

How many people do Antifas kill every year?  Because if it isn't hundreds to thousands that is a stupid comparison.

Quote
3. Why not? Should cops not be allowed to go undercover?

A wildly different situation.  These are cops literally grabing phones out of people's hands, throwing them through windows and then saying "The rioters broke a window" as an excuse to start tear gassing everyone.  https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/police-declare-riots-portland/

Seriously this is a new low even for you paragon.

Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 01:54:28 am
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d2/95/a1/d295a1c869354c7317e58acb84d0d536.jpg)

Um... hello, non sequitur movie reference. Should I post my own?

(https://worldwideinterweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Welcome-to-Earth.-Independence-Day-remix..jpeg)
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 27, 2020, 02:04:48 am
I'm giving you all the respect you deserve.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 02:08:06 am
I'm giving you all the respect you deserve.

Um... are you OK? Feel like we're talking at cross purposes here.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 27, 2020, 02:13:00 am
Just for the record, what he said before editing that comment was "go deepthroat a carving knife."
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 02:16:51 am
Just for the record, what he said before editing that comment was "go deepthroat a carving knife."

...Yeah, that was a knee-jerk reaction before I realized I might've been unfair to you and that you may not have meant it the way I assumed. I was already little testy from being accused of being racist, and I figured you were insulting me on top of that. Still, I think you deserve an apology. Sorry.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 27, 2020, 02:24:53 am
1. Who says you have to know what it means? I don't know the meanings behind license plate numbers, but I can still jot them down so the car can be identified.

So... who do I report that string of characters to? And how am I supposed to know that's an identification of some sort? You can write down a license plate number and report it instead of a name because it's trivial to know where to report the plate number to. You're expecting me to believe that this string of characters is perfectly sufficient identification when I don't even know what agency this asshole works for.

So, yeah, I've written down a seemingly random string of characters. Now what?

Quote
2. I already hinted at this to squirrel boy and three-years-in-the-future, but this is the stated reason why they don't have their names on their uniforms (https://twitter.com/CBPMarkMorgan/status/1284206664913215491):

[quote redacted]

And reactions like this:

[image redacted]

Only strengthen his case.

So I went to the Twitter account that allegedly posted that Tweet. And that Tweet has either been deleted or this is a fake. More likely deleted, in fairness. However, that's completely beside the point.

Do you have proof that people have tried to track down the friends and families of law enforcement? A random Tweet from one Twitter account is not proof that this is a problem. But sure, keep licking those boots and taking what law enforcement officials are saying at face value.

Quote
But if that's how you want to play it, why aren't Antifa members wearing badges with their names so they can be held accountable?

This is two fallacious arguments in one.

False equivalence. Antifa doesn't exist as an organized group and is literally only defined by an opposition to fascism. They're not legally empowered to arrest people off the streets without clear identification or explanation for arrest. They're also not legally empowered to arbitrarily declare when a protest becomes a riot and use tear gas and ballistic weaponry to disperse a crowd.

And

Tu quoque. Even if it wasn't a false equivalence, yeah, I can't imagine why I expect fucking law enforcement to be held to higher standards of transparency and accountability than a "group" that is literally only defined by an opposition to fascism.

Quote
3. Why not? Should cops not be allowed to go undercover?

This is another fallacious argument: Nonsequitur. You're not responding to the point I made. The point I made is that just because it is standard practice to use unmarked vehicles when patrolling, doesn't mean it should be. No one said anything about police going undercover. Nor, just to nip in the bud, did I say that there aren't situations where the discretion afforded by unmarked vehicles isn't a good idea. Patrolling the streets and responding to protests? Why do they need to be discreet for that?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: niam2023 on July 27, 2020, 02:28:06 am
Are any of us surprised that Vanto's playing fascist cheerleader?

Go get your stockings and pom poms on, you ridiculous hack.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: davedan on July 27, 2020, 02:34:20 am
Shame is actually a strong technique against authoritarianism. That's why police forces behave worse when they police places they don't actually live in
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 27, 2020, 02:38:58 am
So... I just noticed something:

All Rioters Are Bastards.

Emphasis mine. Make of that what you will.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 02:48:29 am
1. Who says you have to know what it means? I don't know the meanings behind license plate numbers, but I can still jot them down so the car can be identified.

So... who do I report that string of characters to? And how am I supposed to know that's an identification of some sort? You can write down a license plate number and report it instead of a name because it's trivial to know where to report the plate number to. You're expecting me to believe that this string of characters is perfectly sufficient identification when I don't even know what agency this asshole works for.

So, yeah, I've written down a seemingly random string of characters. Now what?

Quote
2. I already hinted at this to squirrel boy and three-years-in-the-future, but this is the stated reason why they don't have their names on their uniforms (https://twitter.com/CBPMarkMorgan/status/1284206664913215491):

[quote redacted]

And reactions like this:

[image redacted]

Only strengthen his case.

So I went to the Twitter account that allegedly posted that Tweet. And that Tweet has either been deleted or this is a fake. More likely deleted, in fairness. However, that's completely beside the point.

Do you have proof that people have tried to track down the friends and families of law enforcement? A random Tweet from one Twitter account is not proof that this is a problem. But sure, keep licking those boots and taking what law enforcement officials are saying at face value.

Quote
But if that's how you want to play it, why aren't Antifa members wearing badges with their names so they can be held accountable?

This is two fallacious arguments in one.

False equivalence. Antifa doesn't exist as an organized group and is literally only defined by an opposition to fascism. They're not legally empowered to arrest people off the streets without clear identification or explanation for arrest. They're also not legally empowered to arbitrarily declare when a protest becomes a riot and use tear gas and ballistic weaponry to disperse a crowd.

And

Tu quoque. Even if it wasn't a false equivalence, yeah, I can't imagine why I expect fucking law enforcement to be held to higher standards of transparency and accountability than a "group" that is literally only defined by an opposition to fascism.

Quote
3. Why not? Should cops not be allowed to go undercover?

This is another fallacious argument: Nonsequitur. You're not responding to the point I made. The point I made is that just because it is standard practice to use unmarked vehicles when patrolling, doesn't mean it should be. No one said anything about police going undercover. Nor, just to nip in the bud, did I say that there aren't situations where the discretion afforded by unmarked vehicles isn't a good idea. Patrolling the streets and responding to protests? Why do they need to be discreet for that?

1. You know, that's actually a good question. I don't know how you would report it, but I can look it up for you if you'd like.

2. No, I don't. But could you please stop the personal attacks?

3. Antifa may not have the hierarchies typically associated with organizations, but that doesn't mean they're not organized. They have uniforms, flags, social media accounts, handbooks, and merchandise. Maybe they're not a single, unitary organization, but there hasn't been a unified Klan since the 40s. They are defined by more than just opposition to fascism.

4. Well, unless they make it possible to hold individual members accountable, they will inevitably be considered collectively responsible. Especially if said individual members can't be identified.

5. Maybe so they don't get singled out for attack?

Are any of us surprised that Vanto's playing fascist cheerleader?

Go get your stockings and pom poms on, you ridiculous hack.

You haven't proved fascism is happening.

Shame is actually a strong technique against authoritarianism. That's why police forces behave worse when they police places they don't actually live in

...Not sure what that has to do with anything, but OK.

So... I just noticed something:

All Rioters Are Bastards.

Emphasis mine. Make of that what you will.

I didn't think of that. I based it on this:

All Republicans Are Bastards.

The fact that it could be taken that way never crossed my mind, I assure you.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 27, 2020, 02:55:00 am
@Cloud

I'd consider that to be a stretch and say it's probably just a coincidence, except he specified the acronym himself.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 02:58:41 am
@Cloud

I'd consider that to be a stretch and say it's probably just a coincidence, except he specified the acronym himself.

Again, I didn't think of how it could be taken. I was thinking in terms of each individual letter, kind of like how CIA is pronounced "sea-eye-a" rather than "sea-uh". We all make mistakes.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 27, 2020, 03:08:42 am
1. You know, that's actually a good question. I don't know how you would report it, but I can look it up for you if you'd like.

2. No, I don't. But could you please stop the personal attacks?

In other words: You're arguing on baseless grounds. You can just fucking admit that you're wrong.

Quote
3. Antifa may not have the hierarchies typically associated with organizations, but that doesn't mean they're not organized. They have uniforms, flags, social media accounts, handbooks, and merchandise. Maybe they're not a single, unitary organization, but there hasn't been a unified Klan since the 40s. They are defined by more than just opposition to fascism.

4. Well, unless they make it possible to hold individual members accountable, they will inevitably be considered collectively responsible. Especially if said individual members can't be identified.

5. Maybe so they don't get singled out for attack?

Yeah, I'm not going to bother responding to the rest. You've already admitted that you can't back up half of your claims. You're not arguing in good faith. I am under no obligation to waste my time with you, so I won't.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 03:12:18 am
1. You know, that's actually a good question. I don't know how you would report it, but I can look it up for you if you'd like.

2. No, I don't. But could you please stop the personal attacks?

In other words: You're arguing on baseless grounds. You can just fucking admit that you're wrong.

Quote
3. Antifa may not have the hierarchies typically associated with organizations, but that doesn't mean they're not organized. They have uniforms, flags, social media accounts, handbooks, and merchandise. Maybe they're not a single, unitary organization, but there hasn't been a unified Klan since the 40s. They are defined by more than just opposition to fascism.

4. Well, unless they make it possible to hold individual members accountable, they will inevitably be considered collectively responsible. Especially if said individual members can't be identified.

5. Maybe so they don't get singled out for attack?

Yeah, I'm not going to bother responding to the rest. You've already admitted that you can't back up half of your claims. You're not arguing in good faith. I am under no obligation to waste my time with you, so I won't.

Rude.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 27, 2020, 03:30:01 am
Direct question

How many people have been killed by antifas or rioters?  Because I really, really don't see how the problem was bad enough to warrant this sort of reaction.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 03:43:53 am
Direct question

How many people have been killed by antifas or rioters?  Because I really, really don't see how the problem was bad enough to warrant this sort of reaction.

At least 22 by my count. But it's not just the death toll that's the problem. It's also the injuries, the ruin to livelihoods, the attacks on federal property.

And what, specifically, do you think is so terrible about this reaction? If they were being shipped off to Gitmo or some black site, I'd agree with you, but they're not.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 27, 2020, 03:47:44 am
Direct question

How many people have been killed by antifas or rioters?  Because I really, really don't see how the problem was bad enough to warrant this sort of reaction.

At least 22 by my count.

Can you site your sources?

And to turn your own words back, what makes you think that all of these were unjustified?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 27, 2020, 04:30:59 am
Direct question

How many people have been killed by antifas or rioters?  Because I really, really don't see how the problem was bad enough to warrant this sort of reaction.

At least 22 by my count.

Can you site your sources?

And to turn your own words back, what makes you think that all of these were unjustified?

I looked at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests) (which lists 30 deaths in the riots) and removed the killings done by police, those that were clear cases of self-defense, and those that were self-inflicted.

And let's take a look at the individual cases:

Minneapolis, May 28: Man found burned to death in pawn shop arson. Obviously unjustified.

Detroit, May 29: Man killed when his car was shot up. Obviously unjustified.

Oakland, May 29: David Patrick Underwood killed in a drive-by shooting. Obviously unjustified.

St. Louis, May 30: Barry Perkins run over by FedEx truck fleeing looters. Probably an accident.

Indianapolis, May 31: Dorian Murell shot by man claiming self-defense. Possibly unjustified.

Indianapolis, May 31: Chris Beaty fatally shot in unspecified circumstances. Possibly unjustified.

Kansas City, May 31: Marvin Francois shot while picking up one of his sons from a protest. Obviously unjustified.

Chicago, May 31: John Tiggs fatally shot while entering a building to pay a bill. Obviously unjustified.

Riverside, May 31: Myqwon Blanchard shot during a looting. Obviously unjustified.

Davenport, June 1: Italia Marie Kelly killed in random shooting. Obviously unjustified.

Cicero, June 1: Two innocent bystanders shot by "outside agitators". Obviously unjustified.

St. Louis, June 2: David Dorn shot and killed by pawn shop looters. Obviously unjustified.

Bakersfield, June 3: Robert Forbes hit by a vehicle. Possible accident.

Seattle, June 20: 19-year-old man shot in CHAZ. Obviously unjustified.

Louisville, June 27: Photographer shot at Jefferson Square Park. Obviously unjustified.

Seattle, June 29: 16-year-old boy shot by CHAZ security forces. Obviously unjustified.

Seattle, July 4: Summer Taylor hit by a vehicle while protesting on Interstate 5. Possible accident.

Atlanta, July 4: Secoriea Turner, an 8-year-old girl, shot by an unknown suspect. Obviously unjustified.

Indianapolis, July 5: Jessica Doty Whitaker shot after walking away from an argument. Obviously unjustified.

Austin, July 25: Garret Foster killed in unclear incident. Possibly unjustified.

So, out of 22 people killed, 14 were obviously wrongly killed. That's almost 2/3.

Now, let's compare that to the number of unarmed black men shot and killed by cops in 2020. According to the Washington Post's police shootings database (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/), of the 549 people shot by police this year, only seven were unarmed black men. Even broadening that to unarmed people in general, there were only 26. That's less than 5%. And keep in mind, the police had a head start, seeing as the protests didn't begin until May 26.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: ironbite on July 27, 2020, 03:55:37 pm
You got absolute proof that it was "antifa" who did this?  An organization who only exisits in the paranoid delusions of a man ultra-unqualified of the job he now finds himself in.

Ironbite-cause all I see is you saying over and over and over again these are all unclear incidents.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: dpareja on July 27, 2020, 07:54:35 pm
A licence plate is something that is large, pretty standarized in design and position, and (unless the government's trying to save money) visible on the back of a fleeing vehicle so long as it's fleeing.

A uniform patch is only really visible from certain directions and angles, often blends in with the rest of the uniform (such as in the posted picture), and will not necessarily be noticed by someone who doesn't know to look for it, and where to look for it (which stands in contrast to licence plates since "note the licence plate number" is a pretty basic part of road safety). That's the crux of my point, and you didn't address it: if it's even noticed at all.

And as noted, it doesn't do much good to get pictures of these thugs if they're stealing personal property when it's used in an attempt to hold them accountable.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: SomeApe on July 28, 2020, 06:06:24 am
Where can I get one of these Antifa uniforms?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 28, 2020, 01:22:50 pm
You got absolute proof that it was "antifa" who did this?  An organization who only exisits in the paranoid delusions of a man ultra-unqualified of the job he now finds himself in.

Ironbite-cause all I see is you saying over and over and over again these are all unclear incidents.

I never said it was Antifa that was killing people. Sky asked this:

How many people have been killed by antifas or rioters?

A licence plate is something that is large, pretty standarized in design and position, and (unless the government's trying to save money) visible on the back of a fleeing vehicle so long as it's fleeing.

A uniform patch is only really visible from certain directions and angles, often blends in with the rest of the uniform (such as in the posted picture), and will not necessarily be noticed by someone who doesn't know to look for it, and where to look for it (which stands in contrast to licence plates since "note the licence plate number" is a pretty basic part of road safety). That's the crux of my point, and you didn't address it: if it's even noticed at all.

And as noted, it doesn't do much good to get pictures of these thugs if they're stealing personal property when it's used in an attempt to hold them accountable.


Oh, so now we've gone from "they're not identified" to "their identification is too hard to read". Maybe that's a valid criticism, but if this is a problem, it's one that predates these riots by some time.

And are you talking about that time a cop in Portland threw someone's phone at a window? I thought that guy was a local, not a fed.

Where can I get one of these Antifa uniforms?

Probably the same places where you can buy their merchandise.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: SCarpelan on July 28, 2020, 03:11:30 pm
I can respect someone who is in the political center because their ideology and values position them where the center happens currently to be. I have zero respect for someone who actively measures where center is and makes sure their current position is always within that range. Vanto would literally try to defend the Nazi death camps from leftist criticism in the name of balance if he was in WWII Germany.

Edit: And would probably do the same for Stalin's Gulags in Soviet Union. It's after all the recognised authorities doing it so they must know what they are doing.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: dpareja on July 28, 2020, 04:30:43 pm
Oh, so now we've gone from "they're not identified" to "their identification is too hard to read". Maybe that's a valid criticism, but if this is a problem, it's one that predates these riots by some time.

And are you talking about that time a cop in Portland threw someone's phone at a window? I thought that guy was a local, not a fed.

As I noted: there is no effective difference between "no identification" and "can't see the identification".

As for this being an ongoing problem, yes, it is. And if you're trying to defend it on those grounds, I can only refer you to Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" for why the appeal to tradition is stupid.

On the last point, whether it was a local or a fed, it doesn't much matter; the tactic is used to discourage people from attempting to hold law enforcement accountable for their brutality.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: davedan on July 28, 2020, 06:46:33 pm
So how many of the deaths were from 'Rioters'. You only identified deaths caused during the riots. The information there isn't enough to say that the killers were participating in the riots or were in response to the riots. The only ones that definitively fit your scope are the ones caused by the CHAZ security teams.

Also The Week (that famous leftwing mouthpiece) appear to think it's fascism : https://theweek.com/articles/927661/why-trumps-invasion-portland-textbook-fascism (https://theweek.com/articles/927661/why-trumps-invasion-portland-textbook-fascism)
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: SCarpelan on July 29, 2020, 08:51:42 am
Trump - or at least his administration - has graduated from proto-fascism to actual fascism. He is not just laying the ideological ground for a future fascist regime but is putting the ideology in action. Almost all of Umberto Eco's definitions (https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf) hit the mark.

Quote from:  Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. [MAGA! Bring back the 50's!]

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. ...  The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.

4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. ...Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. [The liberal elite / the jews]

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.

10.  Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party.

11.  In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. [Worship of military and the veterans.]

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. ... Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. ...  Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.

It's noteworthy that there are aspects that are part of the American political discourse even before Trump. Specially the worship of the military and the heroism cult around it is scary looking at it from the outside. There are aspects that are promoted as parts of every national identity (again, something to think about) but how extreme forms are normalised in American context is worrying when there is the might of a superpower in play.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: davedan on July 29, 2020, 07:04:23 pm
How dare you suggest that Vanto's opinion isn't as worthy as the writings of some dead Italian. You're probably some sort of pansy who doesn't support teargassing and beating vandals or the people nearby vandals.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: DarkPhoenix on July 29, 2020, 09:13:47 pm
You know, for someone who is trying to be "balanced", it's awful funny that Vanto's arguments are the same ones being made by the far-right wackos who are cheerleading for Trump's fascist takeover.

But since you are, Vanto, I'm going to throw a simple question at you that I wanted to ask them, but know I won't get a straight answer for; if all the protesters are rioters, and all the rioters are trying to burn things down, how is there still a City of Portland for the Feds to be "defending"?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 30, 2020, 09:54:10 am
See, that's what gets me every fuckin' time someone brings up "duh riotars:" they make it sound like there's a band of barbarians running rampant, raping and pillaging everything in sight.

YES, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE, WHO ARE CUNTS, THAT ARE USING THE CIVIL UNREST AS AN  EXCUSE TO BE CUNTS.  However, that does not excuse the pigs and other nice, jackbooted thugs our society enables from using chemical weapons on innocent civilians, assuming they're all potential rioters before any crimes are actually committed.  Well, other than being out during doughnut time "duh cur-foo," "disrespecting" a pig, or happening to be black while in the presence of a pig.

Fuck, lemme put it another way: if its okay for the pigs to assume we're all potential looting rioters and to detain us without a crime having been committed, then why not preemptively arrest people that might murder someone?  Why not arrest random poor people on the assumption that they might one day become drug dealers?  Why not just go full on Minority ReportBECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW JUSTICE FUCKING WORKS.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: niam2023 on July 30, 2020, 12:12:27 pm
In fact, considering he's using his time here to now basically play "but we must be moderate!" and thus cover for Trump going literally full on fascist, I think this constitutes enough of a transgression to ban Vanto right the fuck on outta here.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 30, 2020, 06:39:24 pm
I can respect someone who is in the political center because their ideology and values position them where the center happens currently to be. I have zero respect for someone who actively measures where center is and makes sure their current position is always within that range. Vanto would literally try to defend the Nazi death camps from leftist criticism in the name of balance if he was in WWII Germany.

No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out facts that contradict the IMO alarmist "fascist stormtroopers brutalizing peaceful protesters and kidnapping people" narrative that's being pushed and taking a position on these events based on all the available evidence. You should've seen me say that I'd be against this if we knew the feds were taking these people to Gitmo and black sites, and if it comes out that they are, I'll side with you. I don't make wild assumptions about your positions based on zero evidence as an excuse to demonize you, so I'd appreciate you not doing that to me.

Oh, so now we've gone from "they're not identified" to "their identification is too hard to read". Maybe that's a valid criticism, but if this is a problem, it's one that predates these riots by some time.

And are you talking about that time a cop in Portland threw someone's phone at a window? I thought that guy was a local, not a fed.

As I noted: there is no effective difference between "no identification" and "can't see the identification".

As for this being an ongoing problem, yes, it is. And if you're trying to defend it on those grounds, I can only refer you to Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" for why the appeal to tradition is stupid.

On the last point, whether it was a local or a fed, it doesn't much matter; the tactic is used to discourage people from attempting to hold law enforcement accountable for their brutality.


1. Guess that's fair. Have any suggestions on making the ID more visible? I can think of some. Maybe making it larger, putting it on their chests, use of different colors? What do you think of those ideas?

2. I'm not trying to defend bad identification. You're not wrong, if it's as hard to read as you say it is, it should be changed. My point was that if it's a longstanding issue, you could say the people in charge should change it, but it wasn't their idea.

3. You're right; in that regard, it don't matter. But it does matter when it comes to assigning blame. If it wasn't a fed doing that, why should we blame the feds? We don't blame the FBI for enhanced interrogation, we blame the agencies that actually do that shit.

So how many of the deaths were from 'Rioters'. You only identified deaths caused during the riots. The information there isn't enough to say that the killers were participating in the riots or were in response to the riots. The only ones that definitively fit your scope are the ones caused by the CHAZ security teams.

Also The Week (that famous leftwing mouthpiece) appear to think it's fascism : https://theweek.com/articles/927661/why-trumps-invasion-portland-textbook-fascism (https://theweek.com/articles/927661/why-trumps-invasion-portland-textbook-fascism)

I'd say if you kill people during a riot, you're at the very least taking advantage of the unrest.

And congratulations. You found an opinion. One based on incorrect information. The rioters in Portland have been caught on video doing far worse than just "vandalism". They tried to burn down a federal courthouse (https://www.thedailybeast.com/portland-protesters-set-fire-to-federal-courthouse-cops-declare-demonstration-a-riot), for example. So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to buy into the rest of what he says, especially his "Drumpf is going to declare himself Der Orangefuhrer if this works!" hysteria. I'm sure there are totally legit criticisms to be made of what the feds are doing, but if they really were "fascist stormtroopers", we wouldn't be allowed to make them.

Trump - or at least his administration - has graduated from proto-fascism to actual fascism. He is not just laying the ideological ground for a future fascist regime but is putting the ideology in action. Almost all of Umberto Eco's definitions (https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf) hit the mark.

Quote from:  Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. [MAGA! Bring back the 50's!]

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. ...  The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.

4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. ...Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. [The liberal elite / the jews]

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.

10.  Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party.

11.  In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. [Worship of military and the veterans.]

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. ... Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. ...  Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.

It's noteworthy that there are aspects that are part of the American political discourse even before Trump. Specially the worship of the military and the heroism cult around it is scary looking at it from the outside. There are aspects that are promoted as parts of every national identity (again, something to think about) but how extreme forms are normalised in American context is worrying when there is the might of a superpower in play.

If the Trump administration really is fascist, it's the most permissive fascist government I've ever heard of. To put it bluntly, if the Trump administration really was fascist, we'd be seeing these people locked away without charge or trial, being sent to kangaroo courts, or just straight-up summarily executed. In fascism, you do not go against the state or the ruling party without suffering severe consequences. When Giacomo Matteotti accused the Fascist Party of committing electoral fraud, he was kidnapped and murdered by Mussolini's goons 11 days later.

How dare you suggest that Vanto's opinion isn't as worthy as the writings of some dead Italian. You're probably some sort of pansy who doesn't support teargassing and beating vandals or the people nearby vandals.

You know, you can stop attacking strawmen and talk to the real me at any time.

You know, for someone who is trying to be "balanced", it's awful funny that Vanto's arguments are the same ones being made by the far-right wackos who are cheerleading for Trump's fascist takeover.

But since you are, Vanto, I'm going to throw a simple question at you that I wanted to ask them, but know I won't get a straight answer for; if all the protesters are rioters, and all the rioters are trying to burn things down, how is there still a City of Portland for the Feds to be "defending"?

Where did I say that all the protesters are rioters? And if this were a "fascist takeover", why hasn't Portland's government been replaced with Trump's sycophants? It's literally in the constitution that the federal government is obligated to step in when the state and local authorities fail to enforce federal law or protect federal property.

See, that's what gets me every fuckin' time someone brings up "duh riotars:" they make it sound like there's a band of barbarians running rampant, raping and pillaging everything in sight.

YES, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE, WHO ARE CUNTS, THAT ARE USING THE CIVIL UNREST AS AN  EXCUSE TO BE CUNTS.  However, that does not excuse the pigs and other nice, jackbooted thugs our society enables from using chemical weapons on innocent civilians, assuming they're all potential rioters before any crimes are actually committed.  Well, other than being out during doughnut time "duh cur-foo," "disrespecting" a pig, or happening to be black while in the presence of a pig.

Fuck, lemme put it another way: if its okay for the pigs to assume we're all potential looting rioters and to detain us without a crime having been committed, then why not preemptively arrest people that might murder someone?  Why not arrest random poor people on the assumption that they might one day become drug dealers?  Why not just go full on Minority ReportBECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW JUSTICE FUCKING WORKS.

OK homie, I got no problem with people criticizing the conduct of the feds or the state or local cops. I just want people to have a fucking sense of proportion. This is not fascism.

Side note, I was gonna call you a hypocrite for distinguishing between protesters and rioters while implying all cops are "pigs", but maybe you did that deliberately to make a point. I will say, however, that I have a brother who's a police officer, so I'd appreciate it if you showed a little more nuance.

In fact, considering he's using his time here to now basically play "but we must be moderate!" and thus cover for Trump going literally full on fascist, I think this constitutes enough of a transgression to ban Vanto right the fuck on outta here.

Are you willing to be accused of supporting the riots and all the terrible things that go with them?

Let me make myself perfectly clear. There are valid criticisms to be made. Maybe Trump's acting beyond his authority. Maybe his motives are self-serving. Maybe these measures are doing more harm than good. But this ain't fascism. Fascism is not arresting criminals in a way you don't like. Fascism is a totalitarian system where everything is obligated to be not only completely obedient to the ruling party and the central government, but also to dedicate its entire being to supporting them. Under fascism, you're either part of the state, or you don't deserve to exist. The fact that countless politicians and talking heads are able to criticize this move without fear of being up in front of a firing squad really doesn't gel with the idea that Trump is going "full fascist". Remember when everybody made fun of the wingnuts who said Obama was a far-left radical/Islamic extremist/black supremacist who was going to make himself president for life? You're acting like the leftist equivalents. So many people have pointed out that if Alex Jones was right about Obama, he'd be stone dead right now. Were Trump a fascist, we'd have seen his political opponents die in droves or just disappear by now. Fascists don't fuck around.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: davedan on July 30, 2020, 07:05:06 pm
Is that the same brother who is a cousin who is trans?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: DarkPhoenix on July 30, 2020, 09:39:02 pm
You know, for someone who is trying to be "balanced", it's awful funny that Vanto's arguments are the same ones being made by the far-right wackos who are cheerleading for Trump's fascist takeover.

But since you are, Vanto, I'm going to throw a simple question at you that I wanted to ask them, but know I won't get a straight answer for; if all the protesters are rioters, and all the rioters are trying to burn things down, how is there still a City of Portland for the Feds to be "defending"?

Where did I say that all the protesters are rioters? And if this were a "fascist takeover", why hasn't Portland's government been replaced with Trump's sycophants? It's literally in the constitution that the federal government is obligated to step in when the state and local authorities fail to enforce federal law or protect federal property.

Never mind.  You appear to be using the far right's entire book of arguing techniques; deflection, hampering on small irrelevant points to avoid answering the actual fucking question, downplaying everything...

Oh, and uh, in case you somehow missed history, Hitler and the Nazis didn't START with the concentration camps.  And the argument that it's not fascism until they do is a bullshit argument that shows you aren't taking any of this seriously... Because by the time they get to the concentration camps, it's already too late.

What Trump is doing is fascism.  It's using goverment-ordered force to crack down on protesting by those who don't agree with the government by claiming those protesting are "destroying the country" (which is what YOU do when you insist that only rioters are getting nailed by the new Gestapo, and that they deserve it for "rioting"), and in case you didn't know, this was a technique used by Il Duce as well as Adolf himself; it's a common technique of early fascism.

As for "where did I call all protesters rioters", you seem to assume that the new Gestapo are only going after rioters for "breaking the law."  But the new Gestapo are firing tear gas and rubber bullets at everyone protesting.  Your justification only works if you assume that all protesters are rioters by default.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: niam2023 on July 30, 2020, 10:42:14 pm
"Fascists don't fuck around".

You seem to be arguing from a position here that says fascism is strong, fascism is powerful, fascism would just make everyone opposing it go away. And its not. Fascism is a losing ideology, it's cowardly and only exercises those extreme actions when it has complete state power. Its followers first start with irony, then downplay and finally just try and make the case its not so bad if they were serious. They're spineless racist fuckups that corrupt people at their lowest. And right now, Vanto, you playing BOTH SIDES BAD and covering for Trump's invasion is just playing right into the established fascist tactic of portraying both sides as equally wrong.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 31, 2020, 03:20:02 am
You know, for someone who is trying to be "balanced", it's awful funny that Vanto's arguments are the same ones being made by the far-right wackos who are cheerleading for Trump's fascist takeover.

But since you are, Vanto, I'm going to throw a simple question at you that I wanted to ask them, but know I won't get a straight answer for; if all the protesters are rioters, and all the rioters are trying to burn things down, how is there still a City of Portland for the Feds to be "defending"?

Where did I say that all the protesters are rioters? And if this were a "fascist takeover", why hasn't Portland's government been replaced with Trump's sycophants? It's literally in the constitution that the federal government is obligated to step in when the state and local authorities fail to enforce federal law or protect federal property.

Never mind.  You appear to be using the far right's entire book of arguing techniques; deflection, hampering on small irrelevant points to avoid answering the actual fucking question, downplaying everything...

Oh, and uh, in case you somehow missed history, Hitler and the Nazis didn't START with the concentration camps.  And the argument that it's not fascism until they do is a bullshit argument that shows you aren't taking any of this seriously... Because by the time they get to the concentration camps, it's already too late.

What Trump is doing is fascism.  It's using goverment-ordered force to crack down on protesting by those who don't agree with the government by claiming those protesting are "destroying the country" (which is what YOU do when you insist that only rioters are getting nailed by the new Gestapo, and that they deserve it for "rioting"), and in case you didn't know, this was a technique used by Il Duce as well as Adolf himself; it's a common technique of early fascism.

As for "where did I call all protesters rioters", you seem to assume that the new Gestapo are only going after rioters for "breaking the law."  But the new Gestapo are firing tear gas and rubber bullets at everyone protesting.  Your justification only works if you assume that all protesters are rioters by default.

1. I did answer your question. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't make it "deflection" or "downplaying" or whatever.

2. Oh really? Well, let's take a look at what the Nazis did in their first two years of power. In January 1933, Hitler becomes chancellor. In March of that year, the Reichstag passes the enabling act, granting Hitler plenary powers. The first concentration camps are opened. Persecution of political dissidents and known adversaries of the party begins. In July, all non-Nazi parties are formally outlawed, turning Germany into a one-party state. In late June and early July of 1934, they violently eliminate "dangerous" elements within the party and their remaining opponents, and take the opportunity to settle old scores while they're at it. And in August of that year, after Hindenburg's death, Hitler combines the positions of chancellor and president into one office, cementing the Nazi Party's power over Germany.

3. The Gestapo wouldn't have bothered with rubber bullets and tear gas, they'd have just gunned them down en masse. Still, you have a point. While I maintain that I was only defending the arrests themselves, not the harm done to peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders, I will now unambiguously condemn any and all harm done to people who were merely lawfully exercising their constitutional rights and people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"Fascists don't fuck around".

You seem to be arguing from a position here that says fascism is strong, fascism is powerful, fascism would just make everyone opposing it go away. And its not. Fascism is a losing ideology, it's cowardly and only exercises those extreme actions when it has complete state power. Its followers first start with irony, then downplay and finally just try and make the case its not so bad if they were serious. They're spineless racist fuckups that corrupt people at their lowest. And right now, Vanto, you playing BOTH SIDES BAD and covering for Trump's invasion is just playing right into the established fascist tactic of portraying both sides as equally wrong.

Ah yes, whining about "muh bothsidesism" aka "don't you dare criticize MY tribe". Sometimes, both sides are entirely deserving of criticism. I have already condemned police brutality. Are you willing to condemn the rioting? Not even rioting in general, just this rioting?
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: SCarpelan on July 31, 2020, 07:27:43 am
Ah yes, whining about "muh bothsidesism" aka "don't you dare criticize MY tribe". Sometimes, both sides are entirely deserving of criticism. I have already condemned police brutality. Are you willing to condemn the rioting? Not even rioting in general, just this rioting?

You are equating attacking and killing people to property damage. Comparatively, I don't give a fuck about the latter. Defending cops is excusing much greater harm. Without rioting there would be much less press attention, political pressure and attention on the violent response by the cops; riots are something that happens when more peaceful means have failed and as the result the frustration and justified anger boils over.

Also, rioting != murder. Killing is only acceptable as a last resort when defending oneself or another person from immediate physical danger, no matter who does it.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Skybison on July 31, 2020, 10:51:01 am
^or as someone else put it.

(https://i.imgur.com/YqWip2Y.jpg)
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: Vanto on July 31, 2020, 02:42:04 pm
Ah yes, whining about "muh bothsidesism" aka "don't you dare criticize MY tribe". Sometimes, both sides are entirely deserving of criticism. I have already condemned police brutality. Are you willing to condemn the rioting? Not even rioting in general, just this rioting?

You are equating attacking and killing people to property damage. Comparatively, I don't give a fuck about the latter. Defending cops is excusing much greater harm. Without rioting there would be much less press attention, political pressure and attention on the violent response by the cops; riots are something that happens when more peaceful means have failed and as the result the frustration and justified anger boils over.

Also, rioting != murder. Killing is only acceptable as a last resort when defending oneself or another person from immediate physical danger, no matter who does it.

You say that like the rioters haven't been killing people. I pointed out that at least 22 people so far have been killed either by rioters or by people taking advantage of the riots.

And you are objectively wrong. There was universal condemnation of what happened to George Floyd before these riots, and the cops responsible for his death are facing trial. These riots have accomplished nothing except hurting innocent people and ruining what could have been a bipartisan effort towards police accountability and reform.

How many people have to die in these riots before you condemn them?

^or as someone else put it.

(https://i.imgur.com/YqWip2Y.jpg)

Even ignoring the fact that Dr. King said this more than 50 years ago, posting this only proves my point for me. You realize he's condemning the riots too, right? That's literally what he says he's doing. And that in the exact same interview, he said this:

Quote
Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating.

Imma let DJ Khalded sum this up:

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20664180_115915895734994_8838613562403113765_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=sNhGXOhi5V0AX812BFG&_nc_ht=scontent.xx&oh=35d96aaed4f7084f7ee282707312f9e7&oe=5F48DB68)
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 31, 2020, 02:53:21 pm
Say, anyone got any Lay's?  I ran out of the sour cream and onion bag I had and I desperately want crisps as I watch this shitshow.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: dpareja on July 31, 2020, 03:43:09 pm
Yes, Dr. King condemned rioting. And rightly so.

But what he was pointing out is that people do not turn to rioting as a first resort, as a "just for the hell of it" sort of thing. (Unless you're in Vancouver and the Canucks just lost Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals.) It's only once they've been ground down so hard had their faces driven into the mud and the shit kicked out of them so much, for so long, that they resort to riots as the only way remaining to them to get any sort of attention from their oppressors, to try to force their pain, their cause into the spotlight, even if the resultant attention is negative as a result of how they sought it.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: niam2023 on July 31, 2020, 05:45:37 pm
Of course to someone whose argument is BOTH SIDES BAD, even when 95-100% of the current problem is caused by the fascists in charge, that just means that someone is actually more at fault than the opposite party. Which means there can't be VERY FINE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. Which completely disproves and invalidates Vanto's whole style of argument.

He's the kind of person the Nazis had really appreciated back in the 30s. People like him basically made it seem like there was no clear moral choice, and thus because everyone was equally bad, Hitler could then portray his side as "at least we're effective".
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: dpareja on July 31, 2020, 06:52:05 pm
Of course to someone whose argument is BOTH SIDES BAD, even when 95-100% of the current problem is caused by the fascists in charge, that just means that someone is actually more at fault than the opposite party. Which means there can't be VERY FINE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. Which completely disproves and invalidates Vanto's whole style of argument.

He's the kind of person the Nazis had really appreciated back in the 30s. People like him basically made it seem like there was no clear moral choice, and thus because everyone was equally bad, Hitler could then portray his side as "at least we're effective".

So basically, a sort of "useful idiot".

Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: niam2023 on July 31, 2020, 07:23:51 pm
And for Trump and his alt-right conservative allies, they see someone like that similarly. People so desperate to have balance and see the "good" in both sides of the argument they're willing to lend credence and ideological equality to literal fascists.

Vladimir Putin was eager to portray everyone as equally culpable, and Trump had eagerly played along to try and impress him.

The Nazis love a sort of "one true liberal" like Dave Rubin - someone describing themselves as a "classical liberal" or a "liberal who's also against political correctness" because that inevitably leads people down the rabbit hole to first ironic / joke fascism then to outright actual fascism.

People like you, Vanto, you might as well be fascist recruiters.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: ironbite on July 31, 2020, 07:31:45 pm
Hey not to poke holes in Vanto's "argument" but Portland last night saw the Feds and the PPB all vamoose out the area.  And nobody burned anything, no windows were smashed, hell, there was no rioting.  Weird right?

Ironbite-almost as if the cops were the ones who had the problem with a peaceful protest.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 31, 2020, 10:13:36 pm
Some folks need to be forced to live a few years in the 'hood on a normal, "just barely able to stay alive" salary and benefits.  Yeah, that includes bills.  Then, the whinging cunts can realize how little the pigs actually fucking care when you hear gunshots for the third time that week and they stopped responding to your calls.  They can see how someone can be knifed in the stomach in broad fucking daylight with multiple witnesses, only to have the only reason the Johnny-come-lately pigs find the culprit is because they decided to hide in a nearby alleyway like a fucking idiot.  For extra special fun, they can watch as the pigs beat an innocent black man to death because he looked the wrong way at 'em.  Ooh, or have the brother of one of their friends wrongly sent to prison for life for killing someone in self defense while black.

All real things, all things that happened during my stint in the 'hood.

Maybe, just fucking maybe, then they'd under-fucking-stand why some people would want to watch the nearest police precinct go up in a giant nuclear inferno.  As someone so eloquently put it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9_qGOa9Go): they're lucky black people are looking for equality and not revenge.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: dpareja on August 01, 2020, 01:55:42 am
It's projection. White conservatives ground black people (or LGBT people, or Hispanic people, or whatever group) under their bootheel for so long that they can't think that, if the roles were reversed, they'd want to do anything but take revenge.

I once read some of the speeches of Albert Gallatin Brown. It's pretty clear from his stuff that the general view of white Southerners pre-Civil War was that if slavery were ended, whites would become second-class citizens in the South.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 02, 2020, 12:04:41 am
Another thing that came to mind that really bugs the fuck outta me is that I've seen it time and again framed as a problem for black people.  No, I'm not talking about the David Duke-style canard of "if they could behave like civilized humans," et cetera.  I'm talking about how even relatively normal motherfuckers phrase it.  "Racism against black people."  Not "the racism of white people," no.  Because that would mean accepting responsibility for the problem, and we can't possibly be the problem, we're white.

Thing is, though, racism is a white problem.  Its not incumbent on black people to change our perceptions of them, it is up to white people to actually change shit.  This society is made by, of, and explicitly for the advancement of white cunts like myself.  It is designed that way and has been since long before this country even fuckin' existed.  Its white people and our perceptions that have to change.  We have to manage ourselves, fuckin' police our shit because there's nobody else that can do it.  Nobody else in this fucked up country has the power and clout to accomplish it.  Until white fuckers change, this shit's gonna keep going on and on.  We have to accept responsibility for our fuckups, up to and including the David Dukes and Rooshes V of the world, and fucking do something about it.  Not this namby-pamby "oh, he's such a bad guy" patronizing bullshit where we just try to push these kinds of people under the rug.  If they cannot be made to change, they need to at least be put in a position where they can influence no one, or as close as we can get.

White people need to fucking police themselves.  We've run roughshod over the world fuckin' long enough.
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: DarkPhoenix on August 02, 2020, 04:21:30 am

1. I did answer your question. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't make it "deflection" or "downplaying" or whatever.


NO YOU FUCKING DIDN'T.  The question is, if the rioters have been working to burn the city of Portland down for the last 50 days, as you and a bunch of the Trumpists and Bothsiderists keep insisting, how is there a fucking city left?  You didn't answer that fucking question, you tried to dodge away from the idea that all the protesters were rioters, which you've been repeatedly implying from MINUTE ONE.  For fuck's sake, CUT THE SHIT.


2. Oh really? Well, let's take a look at what the Nazis did in their first two years of power. In January 1933, Hitler becomes chancellor. In March of that year, the Reichstag passes the enabling act, granting Hitler plenary powers. The first concentration camps are opened. Persecution of political dissidents and known adversaries of the party begins. In July, all non-Nazi parties are formally outlawed, turning Germany into a one-party state. In late June and early July of 1934, they violently eliminate "dangerous" elements within the party and their remaining opponents, and take the opportunity to settle old scores while they're at it. And in August of that year, after Hindenburg's death, Hitler combines the positions of chancellor and president into one office, cementing the Nazi Party's power over Germany.


Because we all know the Nazi Party sprung fully formed out of the ether and didn't do ANYTHING before Adolf Hitler became Chancellor, right?

Oh, and here's the problem with Vanto's position on all this:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/1oobmzfr75f75ed/1_Rk8NgfKRLzD3CUrwgh37gw.jpeg)
Title: Re: First Trump came for Portland
Post by: SCarpelan on August 02, 2020, 11:21:54 am
Ah yes, whining about "muh bothsidesism" aka "don't you dare criticize MY tribe". Sometimes, both sides are entirely deserving of criticism. I have already condemned police brutality. Are you willing to condemn the rioting? Not even rioting in general, just this rioting?

You are equating attacking and killing people to property damage. Comparatively, I don't give a fuck about the latter. Defending cops is excusing much greater harm. Without rioting there would be much less press attention, political pressure and attention on the violent response by the cops; riots are something that happens when more peaceful means have failed and as the result the frustration and justified anger boils over.

Also, rioting != murder. Killing is only acceptable as a last resort when defending oneself or another person from immediate physical danger, no matter who does it.

You say that like the rioters haven't been killing people. I pointed out that at least 22 people so far have been killed either by rioters or by people taking advantage of the riots.

And you are objectively wrong. There was universal condemnation of what happened to George Floyd before these riots, and the cops responsible for his death are facing trial. These riots have accomplished nothing except hurting innocent people and ruining what could have been a bipartisan effort towards police accountability and reform.

How many people have to die in these riots before you condemn them?

Yes, you proved that some rioters kill people. So do some cops. I already very clearly condemned those rioters who did so. One of these groups is actively protecting its members from consequences of such actions and it is not the rioters. If rioting is comparable to murder then policing is, too, as is driving a car or shooting a gun.

I'm sure you have evidence that there was an effort to reform the police that was more than empty words to keep people calm. I'm also sure you can show that these efforts were stopped, not increased as the protests and riots grew. People have no reason to trust any promises officials give until they see action and the institutional power of the police is contained.