What the hell does that have to do with anything? The problem isn’t that they aren’t wearing nametags.
The problem isn’t that there is miscommunication as to who is in charge.
*The problem is that they refuse to identify what department they work for, what they are taking people off the street for, or where they are taking people. They refuse to talk to the Portland police at all. *
Why do you keep insisting on minimalizing the problems being faced in Portland?
You can try. Maybe your relatives can get compensation after your funeral
Its not a contest. All things can be true. You want to fight go after Octopus or someone who will engage with you
No, I think I’ll engage with the person who keep trying to divert attention from what is actually happening here in Portland, whether it is you, Octopus, or any other person putting forth weak-ass excuses for the inexcusable behaviour of the Trump Troops.
“All things can be true”? Not when they most definitely aren’t.
Weak-ass excuses for Trump? I’ve said no such thing. As for what is happening in Portland… IM WATCHING RIGHT NOW.
Are you in downtown Portland right now? If you are watching it on television, what network?
Several livestreams on Youtube from protest participants. Apparently in north Portland the Feds and cops drove the protesters east wheras outside a federal building some Feds briefly came out to launch teargas and clear some fences then waddled back in with their tails between their legs.
Now their speaker is saying “White people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt black kids”…what has this got to do with snatching, BLM and police brutality?
…is that a transcript you are reading off there? Can you add a bit more context, preferably to a link to a recording of the stream? No offense, but based on the tone of your posts on this thread there is a very good chance you’ve taken what has been said out of context.
Are speakers obliged to only speak on topics that Pavelb1 deems appropriate?
Whose speaker?
They shouldn’t have been there at all. There were no prison riots in DC at the time, and no other extraordinary circumstances requiring their presence.
They will be dead. But when your family sues, an interesting legal precedent might be set.
It was a 'Portland Protest Organizer". Before her were a couple of BLM leaders from Seattle, and after a girl sang a Lauryn Hill song
So your objection is that a leaderless popular uprising, in one of the most left leaning cities in America, with one of the larger economic disparities in the nation, is not behaving in an organized fashion nor are random people speaking from a common set of talking points and vetted speeches.
Sit down and hold on to your ass…Ready?
You’re absolutely right! Have a cookie.
Ok, I can be dense sometimes but there seems to me to be some obvious questions. Why have police there at all? Protesting is legal, so just let the protesters protest. If federal agents are behaving illegally, the mayor should order the local police to protect the protesters and arrest the offending federal officers. If the mayor / chief of police / police commissioner / whoever is able to give such an order refuses to do so, then vote their ass out this fall.
Much as I agree, that is not without consequence.
I’m certainly not saying that’s the worst option, unfortunately, I don’t know that there are any good options at this point, so it may well be the least bad.
But it will get ugly if that comes to pass.
So it was just some random person, not anyone or any group’s designated speaker? Why did you say “their speaker”?
Some of the fuss was, I gather, because they not only weren’t wearing name tags, they weren’t wearing badge numbers or even anything identifying them as BoP – that got figured out later but wasn’t AIUI clear at the time.
Even if all they’re doing is kidnapping people off the street long enough to terrify them, that’s still wrong. I grant it’s better to disappear them for hours than for weeks or forever, and also that it’s better to kidnap them and then let them go than to kidnap them and then make up charges so they can hold them, but it’s still a really bad idea to let it pass.
I’m not sure whether they’ve actually arrested and properly charged anybody who actually was attacking a Federal building or committing some other actual crime. But even if they’re doing that, they should identify themselves while making the arrest.
Damn good question, that.
I suspect it would be your survivors who would be trying to get it answered, though.
It’s already ugly.
It certainly seems this way, but we’ve been moving quietly in this direction for a long time. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that we need a security state. I don’t mean to sound like a raging conspiracy theorist, but I really do believe that there are people within the bureaucratic labyrinth (aka ‘deep state’) who have careers and income based on the existence of the security state, and look for problems to solve. Only now, we have an administration that gladly weaponizes them.
In one of Edward Snowden’s interviews, he explained that he was motivated in part because he wanted to raise America’s awareness to the fact that there is a growing imbalance between a citizenry that has less and less privacy and a government that has more and more secrecy. Information is power. Privacy is also power. When government has all the information it wants on individuals, it has power over the individual. When citizens don’t know how its government operates, it lacks accountability, and it is free to operate with impunity, while selectively training the weapons of information warfare and the massive resources of law enforcement and sweeping laws on individuals who stand up to question or critique policies.
We have assumed since World War I - and almost certainly before then - that government occasionally needs to assert authoritarian powers during times of emergencies, but these emergency powers recede once threats diminish. Since the Cold War, and certainly since the ‘war on terror,’ we’ve lived in a world of perpetual emergency. Hence, we’ve lived in a perpetual security state. But the security state is not compatible with liberal democracy, and we’re beginning to see that play out in ways we never imagined, owing to the fact that faith in liberal democracy has waned and replaced with cynicism and apathy that have left the door open for abuses.
You said earlier you were watching live feeds on youtube. Please provide a link to those live feeds.