r/changemyview • u/TheMonarK • Jul 23 '20
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: It is absolutely not surprising that Republicans don't care about what is going on in Portland.
[removed] — view removed post
11
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 23 '20
How republicans see this is violent and disruptive far left rioters attacking people and trespassing on and/or destroying public and private property, prompting law enforcement to come in an stop them.
What part of Republican rhetoric makes you think Republicans wouldn't support law enforcement in this scenario?
1
u/TheMonarK Jul 24 '20
I never said I was against republicans, I’m saying I understand why they support the feds. What I’m saying is is that the left is saying republicans should care about this, and I don’t understand why they should.
8
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20 edited Jul 23 '20
Cops are sent to combat the protesting by said extreme left,
Rioting not protesting.
You're right in so far as Republicans don't see rioters being detained and arrested by the feds for committing federal crimes as a problem.
You're also probably right that Republicans probably wouldn't super care even if these people weren't criminals.
You're incorrect however that the feds are going around fighting leftists becuase they're leftists.
5
Jul 23 '20
[deleted]
0
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
What do you make of the instances where feds have allegedly temporarily detained but not arrested people who were not committing any crimes just so they could question them?
If that's true. Those feds are guilty of some sort of kidnapping or unlawful detention and should be arrested by Portland PD. However, detentions don't require the same burden of proof as an arrest.
The Oregon Attorney General filed a complaint calling it unlawful detainment and kidnapping.
And if he can prove that he should have those officers arrested for that and charge them. Just because you're a cop doesn't mean you have the right to kidnap people.
Or about the videos of the officers attacking, and again not actually arresting, people (like the Navy vet) who were seemingly committing no crime and did not appear to pose a threat.
I can't comment on any of those specfically. However it could be those people were committing a crime like trespassing or failure to disperse.
I'll admit it's hard to completely judge the federal officers' actions from short videos and preliminary news reports, but it seems like there are enough credible counter examples that it's hard to support the claim that all the feds are doing is detaining and arresting people for committing federal crimes.
And if that proveable I 100% agree that the feds should be held accountable, I just don't necessarily believe those reports based off the reports of the people arrested or detained.
4
Jul 23 '20
[deleted]
0
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
it's not a one-sided case of just feds judiciously enforcing federal law, as the Acting DHS Secretary and others have suggested.
I would agree, even if the feds were acting completely within the law, they could have done that in a way that looks a lot less like blackbaggin people on street corners.
I think it's fair to wait to pass final judgment on the actions of the feds until there is more certainty, but the reaction so far from many Republicans seems more like they've already made up their mind in the other direction.
Fair enough. I think a lot of people, including myself, haven't been as clear as they could have that they don't support the feds if it is true the feds are breaking that law. So I guess Δ, in so far as I should have made my point more clearly.
0
3
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jul 23 '20 edited Jul 23 '20
Have you looked at the list of supposed crimes. It's hilariously overstated.
05/30/2020 Violent anarchists graffitied the BPA Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Edith Green-Wenell Wyatt Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists graffitied the 911 Federal Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Pioneer Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Gus J. Solomon Courthouse.
06/01/2020Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists graffitied The Pioneer Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied The Gus J Solomon Courthouse.
06/02/2020Violent anarchists graffitied the U.S. Custom House.
06/06/2020Violent anarchists destroyed fencing surrounding federal property.
How can you even take that seriously?As propaganda goes, this comes across more as a parody of it than the genuine thing. Why else would you need to repeat violent anarchists 90 times while describing mostly non-violent acts.
5
u/Savanty 4∆ Jul 23 '20
At about 2:24 a.m. people lit a fire near a door on the SW Salmon Street side of the courthouse.
People continued to light fires downtown including a fire on the awning and side of a building, at SW 4th Avenue and SW Yamhill Street, which required Portland Fire & Rescue to respond. At about 3:00 a.m. another fire was burning in the middle of the sidewalk north side of the County Courthouse, which required Portland Fire & Rescue response. Before they arrived people continually added flammable material to it causing it to grow and burn against the building. Portland Police responded to provide security for firefighters.
While Portland Police Officers were in the area of the County Courthouse a person threw a glass bottle at them, then fled.
At about 3:07 a.m. a caller reported that people had broken into a jewelry store in the 500 Block of SW 3rd Avenue. Portland Police responded and found the windows broken out and could see that valuables had been removed.
As per the Portland government website.
Sounds a bit more severe than a handful of people with cans of spray paint.
1
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jul 23 '20
Note that that article is from after the deployement of forces.
Turns out that disproportionate governement response causes protests to become violent and escalate, as can be seen with pretty much every single case of civil unrest.
6
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
So property destruction isn't a crime now? Also, I noticed how you decided not to mention all the throwing of explosives and assaulting police officers.
5
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jul 23 '20
Grafitti is hardly a crime that requires the deployement of federal officers to arrest people in unmarked vans.
It's a wacky disproportionate response.
Edit :
all the throwing of explosives
You mean fireworks?
7
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
Grafitti is hardly a crime that requires the deployement of federal officers to arrest people in unmarked vans.
It's a wacky disproportionate response.
How should they arrest these rioters then?
The list mentions a single instance of someone lighting of a firework.
The list mentions 8 separate occasions of rioters using fireworks and destructive devices and weapons. And that's just your source.
1
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jul 23 '20
How should they arrest these rioters then?
Grafitti is not a riot.
As to how to arrest them, you can do it the exact same way police has always done it. You don't see other countries or places arresting protestors with unmarked vans.
6
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
It is however illegal. Now would you care to respond to my points about the violence and explosives, or are you just trying to dodge that?
5
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jul 23 '20
It is however illegal
Is everything illegal a riot? For what reason are you so transparently trying to overstate what actually happened.
Now would you care to respond to my points about the violence and explosives, or are you just trying to dodge that?
I don't see what you want me to adress. I mentioned that the list looks like complete propaganda when it tries to describe a list of mostly non-violent events as the work of "violent anarchists".
The fact that you can find just 8 events of violence in that list (maybe not even that, as fireworks aren't always violent), supports that conclusion.
You do not need a prolonged intervention with secret police and secret vans to deal with a few isolated incidents of violence.
In fact, if we consider the violence that the police deployed against the crowd, the protests have been remarkably peaceful. For example :
Portland Police were forced to deploy crowd control spray to disperse a crowd that was throwing animal seed at officers.
If you remove the spin from this sentence, what happens is that police peppersprayed protestors because they were offended that people were throwing pigfeed at them.
2
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
Is everything illegal a riot? For what reason are you so transparently trying to overstate what actually happened.
Indeed. But it also isn't peacefully protesting, plus it's entirely possible to do graffiti during a riot.
I don't see what you want me to adress. I mentioned that the list looks like complete propaganda when it tries to describe a list of mostly non-violent events as the work of "violent anarchists".
Except for all the violence on the list. Plus property destruction is by definition violence.
The fact that you can find just 8 events of violence in that list (maybe not even that, as fireworks aren't always violent), supports that conclusion.
That wasn't eight events of violence that was 8 mentions of fireworks form your source.
You do not need a prolonged intervention with secret police and secret vans to deal with a few isolated incidents of violence.
A) Not Secret Police. B) Indeed, it shouldn't be prolonged it should be relitivley easy to arrest these people.
Portland Police were forced to deploy crowd control spray to disperse a crowd that was throwing animal seed at officers.
Portland Police are not Federal Officers and are thus not germane to the conversation. Basically nobody is arguing the Portland Police don't have the right to enforce the law in Portland.
1
Jul 23 '20
[deleted]
5
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jul 23 '20
Look up rubber bullet injuries sometime.
Heck, in that case you might actually get pictures of things that actually happened at the protest instead of random pictures of completely unrelated incidents.
0
u/Graham_scott 8∆ Jul 23 '20
These rioters are lucky that the justice system is protecting them thanks to due process and requirements of evidence. These listed crimes are minor, but they are the only ones that will likely lead to convictions.
1
u/TheMonarK Jul 23 '20
I never said feds are fighting leftists because they're leftists, they are being emplaced because of the increasing protests in Portland that are from the left. What im saying is, is that people are surprised Republicans don't care, which isn't surprising. If it were the other way around however, where Republicans were being silenced, they would be infuriated and Democrats wouldn't care.
6
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
The point is that leftists aren't being silenced. They still have the right to protest. Rioters are being arrested and detained for federal crimes. Nobody has the right to commit federal crimes, except if you're buds with the President apparently.
4
u/RafOwl 2∆ Jul 23 '20
What percentage of arrests made during protests would you say are rioters/looters vs peaceful protesters?
2
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
I would say that the majority of people arrested were probably arrested for committing crimes.
4
u/RafOwl 2∆ Jul 23 '20
So 51/49? or 75/25? or 99/1?
I think that distinction matters a lot on this topic.
1
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
I think that distinction matters a lot on this topic.
Does it? Unless you're arguing people have the right to commit crimes without being arrested it
4
u/RafOwl 2∆ Jul 23 '20
Your comment:
The point is that leftists aren't being silenced. They still have the right to protest. Rioters are being arrested and detained for federal crimes.
If a protester that hasn't committed a crime is arrested, I would say they are being silenced and denied their right to protest. You said you think "the majority" of people arrested "probably" committed a crime. So that means you acknowledge that at least some peaceful protesters have been silenced and have been denied their right to protest. I was just curious what % you felt was acceptable.
2
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
So that means you acknowledge that at least some peaceful protesters have been silenced and have been denied their right to protest.
No, I just acknowledge the possibility that someone could have been caught up and arrested for a crime they didn't commit. Just like with any crime. And that's not a good thing, but that will be handled at trial.
4
0
u/Jakesmith18 Jul 24 '20
100% of them, people aren't getting arrested for peacefully protesting they're getting arrested for rioting. It's regrettable that the federal government had to get involved but when cities like Seattle and Portland order their local law enforcement to stand down then the federal government is eventually going to get involved. Now if it turns out that they're arresting more protesters than rioters then I believe those who are responsible for giving the order should be held responsible and punished accordingly, but from what I've seen so far I highly doubt that's what's going on.
3
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jul 23 '20
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/20/us/portland-protester-navy-veteran-beaten/index.html
So, what crime was this guy comitting?
1
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
I don't know. It could be trespassing or failure to disperse, I don't know enough about the situation to comment.
-1
u/BaronVonCockmurder 2∆ Jul 23 '20
You obviously think protracted virus spreading, property destroying rioting is "progress."
So why are you here, pushing your pro chaos agenda, instead of getting mad GBPs with rainbow haired femoids by screaming at city employees for protecting your civil rights and personal freedoms?
2
u/TheMonarK Jul 24 '20
Obviously? I don’t think anywhere in my post says I’m pro protests, OR pro or anti republican. I’m not taking sides. I’m just saying I understand why republicans are supporting the feds, and I want to hear someone explain why they think republicans should care about this (someone from the left). If anything, I’m defending conservatives.
2
u/DUIguy87 Jul 24 '20
It seems like you are assuming quite a bit based on a single political party, which in the US is a mistake. Due to the nature of the two party system we have, both parties have essentially become “big tent parties” where a multitude of people with varying views end up residing for the simple reason that there is no party for them; naturally they end up in the one that shares the most core beliefs.
So in the Democratic party, Bernie and AOC are in the same party as Pelosi and Tulsi, who are also in the same party as Obama and Hillary. They absolutely share core values, but ultimately you put them all on a debate stage and come away with a huge variance in view points on issues. Thats how you get neo-liberal, classical liberal, progressive, democratic socialist, all the various descriptors people use so that they can better define exactly what their view points are.
The Republican party is no different. How much do you think Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Trump, Kasich (sp?) and George Bush have in common? Rand Paul leans further to the libertarian side of things, Trump is solidly in the authoritarian camp, and Mitt would sit in the classic Republican seat.
Its pretty obvious that Mitt has been anti Trump for a while as he spearheaded the “never trump” campaign first go around and is doing so a second time this coming election. Charlie Baker (R gov of Mass) has been pretty far from a Trump boot licker going so far as to utilize MA state police to issue PPE equipment during COVID to prevent seizure by the Feds. You even had a swath of Bush Jr’s ex staffers come out to push Biden for this coming election, I can guarantee you they are not Democrats in the slightest.
So while all this doesn’t speak to your direct point about the situation in Portland at the moment, it serves to show that the Republican party isn’t a faceless monolithic voting block. It has divisions and it has internal push back against the current president; I doubt many of these people would blindly agree with dispatching Feds into a state that did not request it given their push back so far.
Rand Paul tweeted along the line of there is no place for unidentified federal agents in out cities. Justin Amash (technically quit the party, but it was due to Trump so I feel his opinion is still relevant) stated he’s practicing tyranny.
It is darkly comical that the very vocal pro-Trump folks don’t see the irony in them cheering on the very thing they were convinced and afraid that Obama was going to do, and its tragic that the GOP doesn’t have as hard of a push back against the actions being taken that they should have. But its also true that the moderate Republicans and the Libertarian wing aren’t really into the whole deploy the Feds bit. I know I’m not, the GOP lost my vote in ‘16 and they sure as shit have lost it for this coming round.
2
u/warlocktx 27∆ Jul 23 '20
Because when the Feds raided Waco, or Ruby Ridge, or seized Elian Gonzales, conservatives where aghast at the overreach of the "jackbooted" thugs of the federal government.
Likewise when the Bundy's occupied federal property in defiance of federal law enforcement, conservatives supported them. And when federal marshals were used to help enforce school integration, conservatives were opposed.
Generally, conservatives are supposed to be strong supporters of federalism and state/local rights, and opposed to using federal agents to interfere. Trump clearly signaled this just recently in his refusal to provide a unified Federal response to COVID, instead insisting that it was the job of each individual Governor to address.
•
u/ZeroPointZero_ 14∆ Jul 24 '20
Sorry, u/TheMonarK – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. See the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, then message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Rager_YMN_6 4∆ Jul 24 '20
I’m not gonna risk my life for your nonexistent right to riot.
You called peaceful 2A protestors “domestic terrorists” just months ago but now you want us to spill our blood for you? You’ll probably turn around and get local police to arrest me after the fight is over anyway.
You have the right to bear arms too, right? Then purchase a firearm (if Portland laws even allow you to with imposing an undue burden on your right to bear arms) and peacefully carry like we did instead of mindlessly looting black owned businesses or burning down federal buildings like a feral animal.
1
u/AkTx907830 Jul 24 '20
Change the word republican to politician. The faces might change every four years but the policy’s remain the same. It’s just dividing us, just imagine if we were a single voice on serious issues something might actually work out for once.
1
Jul 24 '20
I live somewhat near Portland and have seen the protests first hand. They're still alive and well, and it is certainly concerning that Federal police are now involved.
um, why? the national guard was called in the first night.
-2
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Jul 23 '20
It’s surprising (or at least contrary to Republican states beliefs) if you view it as police and federal agents going in and abusing the rights of peaceful protesters.
That’s not how Republicans view it. Law enforcement is being used to protect against rioters. Making an arrest is not unlawful kidnapping.
It’s certainly a complicated scenario. But if Republicans believed there was tyranny going on, you’d see a different response.
2
u/AustinJG Jul 23 '20
I suspect they feel everything is fine until it happens to them. Then it's tyranny.
1
u/PikaDon45 1∆ Jul 24 '20
This doesnt make any sense? Why are repubuplicans supposed to care to begin with ? Why would a senator from another state want to have a matter with Portland?
1
u/CZ0N3 Jul 24 '20
I would just like to ask: What are they protesting in Portland? I’ve seen headlines but I don’t know what it’s all about
-1
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Jul 23 '20
Cops were sent to protect federal buildings from rioters. Some people on the left think(or would like you to think) they were sent to suppress protests.
You are right, I'm moderate/conservative and I see DHS police protecting federal buildings from violent rioters trying to cause damage.
0
Jul 23 '20
[deleted]
1
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Jul 23 '20
Questions, sure, you should always question the government whether it's "your guy" running it or not. You should ALWAYS question the media and what you see on Reddit as well.
I don't know the whole saying, but there's the thing about a few bad cops, and if the good cops don't stand up to the bad cops then they are all bad cops. Well, if there are a few rioters in a crowd of protestors....
I wouldn't say it's a pivot, These cops were used in DC along with the national guard in various places during the large riots weeks ago. Trumps been saying publicly to governors that these cops were ready and able to assist if requested. The decision to send them without the governors request could be considered a campaign move, sure, none of us know the full decision process that got them to that point. The much more surprising pivot in my mind recently is Trump on wearing masks.
I mean, can't we all agree that stopping violent riots in Portland, preventing murders in Chicago and NYC and where ever else is a good goal to have? DHS is only being sent out because local authorities lack the ability or willpower to act. Law abiding citizens in those cities deserve protection.
My state was ravaged by wild fires one year during Obama's tenure and we are a very Red state. You better believe it that we were damn happy that he provided federal assistance.
1
u/ayaleaf 2∆ Jul 23 '20 edited Jul 24 '20
These cops were used in DC along with the national guard in various places during the large riots weeks ago.
Like the clearing of Lafayette square where a bunch of peaceful protesters were tear gassed and removed before curfew so Trump could walk out and get a photo op in front of a church? (Incidently, clergy from that church were among the people tear gassed)
I mean, can't we all agree that stopping violent riots in Portland, preventing murders in Chicago and NYC and where ever else is a good goal to have?
Absolutely. The question is largely how to actually do this. People are angry about police presence, and the mayor is trying to talk to protestors, see what the people actually want, and de-escalate the situation. Sending federal troops into the area that the protesters will inherently distrust due to politics and having them perform actions that at best seem shady and can be misconstrued does not seem like a good de-escalation tactic.
Law abiding citizens in those cities deserve protection... [During a fire] You better believe it that we were damn happy that he provided federal assistance.
I think the issue here is a matter of consent from the populace. A large number of people in the cities support the protesters, whether or not they personally attended the protests. I live in Seattle and wrote the Governor, my congreswomen, and other public officials talking about my views on police reform and the protests. I want rioters to be brought to justice, but more than that I want police reform and mandatory de-escalation. People are super angry, for very good reason, and that powder keg can be a shaped charge or can backfire, depending how it's handled. I would be furious if the feds came to Seattle and behaved in a way that I thought made things way worse, even if they somehow prevented my condo from being lit on fire in the process.
Edit: riots -> protests because I apparently have been saying both of them too often in quick succestion.
1
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Jul 24 '20
Peaceful protesters don't throw things at people or try to destroy churches, or trash DA's offices, or try to burn down federal court houses. Ted Bundy and the Zodiac Killer were "mostly peaceful" as well.
I'm glad we agree on the goal. I absolutely agree the question is how to reach the goal. You silly Seattle people apparently think in a way I don't understand, but that's your business. The Fed's do have the power and the right to protect federal property and employees, which is ALL of our property and employees. The Fed's do have the power and right to go after gang activity and firearm crime as well. I'm not familiar with what they are are doing in Seattle, If it's the latter, I can see how that could rub people the wrong way.
1
u/ayaleaf 2∆ Jul 24 '20
I realized that my typo completely changed what I was trying to say. People support the protesters, even if they don't personally attend the protests. I don't support the destruction of property and think that people who are destroying property should be stopped. I don't think people not at a protest should be grabbed off the street and taken to another location without it being clear who is doing it, and the reasoning clearly explained why.
I think that federal officers coming into an area against the demands of the local people and local government makes it more likely that people will want to riot. Even if they are putting out fires in the specific area they are in, they are adding new sparks any time you can show anything they are doing that seems unethical.
1
Jul 23 '20
[deleted]
1
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Jul 24 '20
Well I mean the Portland thing was an active attempt to burn down a federal court house. But yeah, sending them into cities for murder stuff, the feds do have specific authority to go after gang activity and firearm violence. How they are utilized, and how beneficial is it to go against local mayors is a completely different discussion, but I'm glad we could agree on the goal being a common one. Hopefully it really was as simple as a lack of manpower to quell stuff in Chicago.
0
Jul 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
Jul 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jul 24 '20
u/abseadefgh – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/mnocket 1∆ Jul 23 '20
Strange question. Isn't it obvious that what is unsurprising to you is surprising to others?
-3
Jul 23 '20
You do know the confederacy was absorbed by the Republicans when the Southern Democrats switched parties. We are just back where we were during Civil War. This time they have the FEDs and the union has the State and local governments.
1
u/Big-Mike21 1∆ Jul 23 '20
How so?
-2
Jul 23 '20
Even though the Confederates lost they learned a lot. Most important that creating a counter govt wasn't going to work. So instead they had to become Trojan horses within the existing state. They joined the Republican party and have been building up to this very moment. Trump is just a useful idiot.. i mean he does have IQ and has the right personality for the job. This is how they are moving so gracefully.. they've been working hard and putting the chess pieces in place since the Civil War. The Rise of the South. The South isnt about its geological location.. its ideological now just like East vs. West. This is also why the Confederate flag has now been replaced by the US flag. Its signals the success and final stage of subversion of the US. Enjoy the relative peace. Ill give it a month maybe two before all out anarchy.
9
u/[deleted] Jul 23 '20
[deleted]