100th Night of Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests in Portland - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15119716
Doug64 wrote:As soon as you toss in the “without” you’re asking me to prove a negative. And no, I’m not going to go along with starting from the assumption that we have a serious police brutality problem that can be explained by systemic racism, then trying to disprove it. The burden of proof lies on those that claim the problem exists in the first place. Yes, there are isolated incidents of police brutality. Provide proof that such brutality is a systemic problem.


So no evidence. Okay.

This argument is now dismissed as unsupported.

You also lose marks for believing the incorrect idea that negative claims cannot be proven. Apparently you think it is impossible to show that 2+2 does not equal 5.

And again, if you think having a rate of police killings that is several times higher than other developed nations is not a problem (i.e. Rwanda and Pakistan have less of a problem) , then you are free to hold that belief.

So you aren’t claiming that most Whites are racist, you’re claiming that everyone is racist? Again, prove it. And no, a newspaper article I can’t access doesn’t count as proof.


I quoted the relevant text.

Anyone who can read my post can reply to the relevant part of the article.
#15119965
Pants-of-dog wrote:So no evidence. Okay.

This argument is now dismissed as unsupported.

You also lose marks for believing the incorrect idea that negative claims cannot be proven. Apparently you think it is impossible to show that 2+2 does not equal 5.

“Innocent until proven guilty” means that it isn’t up to me to provide proof that our law enforcement is systematically racist. And I can prove that 2+2=4 (a positive), which naturally precludes that 2+2 doesn’t equal 5 or 3 or any other number but 4. So please prove that 2+2=4.

And again, if you think having a rate of police killings that is several times higher than other developed nations is not a problem (i.e. Rwanda and Pakistan have less of a problem) , then you are free to hold that belief.

Nope, not what I’ve said. What I’ve said that I don’t believe that the root of that rate of police killings isn’t racism, and therefore to act as if it is, is to fail to fix the problem. And the first step is to determine how many of those police shootings aren’t justified—such as the latest shooting in Pennsylvania, when the cop was being chased down the street by a man brandishing a knife. Is that really something that calls for rioters to loot and destroy their neighbors’ businesses?

I quoted the relevant text.

Anyone who can read my post can reply to the relevant part of the article.

Your “relevant portion” is a professor’s opinion that if you have to ask yourself if you’re a racist, you’re a racist, and if you don’t ask yourself if you’re a racist, you’re a racist—so everyone is a racist. It is my firm opinion that that is hogwash, and I don’t see any reason why my opinion is any less valid than hers.
#15119974
Doug64 wrote:“Innocent until proven guilty” means that it isn’t up to me to provide proof that our law enforcement is systematically racist. And I can prove that 2+2=4 (a positive), which naturally precludes that 2+2 doesn’t equal 5 or 3 or any other number but 4. So please prove that 2+2=4.


You can spend as much time as you want explaining why you feel you should not have to support your arguments.

Getting back to the actual topic, US policing and justice systems were openly and expressly racist until the civil rights movement came along in the 1960s. Since then, many changes have taken place, but the inherent racism in policing and the justice systems has never been addressed.

Nope, not what I’ve said. What I’ve said that I don’t believe that the root of that rate of police killings isn’t racism, and therefore to act as if it is, is to fail to fix the problem.


Did you want to reread this and check if you wrote that correctly? Because you seem to be saying that you think racism is a problem.

And the first step is to determine how many of those police shootings aren’t justified—such as the latest shooting in Pennsylvania, when the cop was being chased down the street by a man brandishing a knife. Is that really something that calls for rioters to loot and destroy their neighbors’ businesses?


Why do some conservatives always bring up riots when discussing p9lice brutality?

Anyway, back to the topic:

There is no way for you guys to determine how many are justified or not since you guys do not even keep track of how many innocent civilians are killed and brutalised by cops.

So the actual first step is to force all cops to wear body cams and have third party investigators review the footage and then archive the info.

Your “relevant portion” is a professor’s opinion that if you have to ask yourself if you’re a racist, you’re a racist, and if you don’t ask yourself if you’re a racist, you’re a racist—so everyone is a racist. It is my firm opinion that that is hogwash, and I don’t see any reason why my opinion is any less valid than hers.


Because you are simply dismissing things you do not like while the idea of implicit and unconscious biases is well supported.

Back to the topic:

Racism is still alive and well in the US. It has an obvious influence on policing and justice.
#15120033
Pants-of-dog wrote:Getting back to the actual topic, ...

For the actual topic, check the title.

Why do some conservatives always bring up riots when discussing p9lice brutality?

Check the title.

Anyway, back to the topic:

Check the title.

There is no way for you guys to determine how many are justified or not since you guys do not even keep track of how many innocent civilians are killed and brutalised by cops.

Didn’t you provide a total number of police shootings? That’s certainly a good place to start. Now you just need to find someone that’s determined how many of those shootings were unjustified.

Back to the topic:

See the title.

Racism is still alive and well in the US. It has an obvious influence on policing and justice.

Prove it.
#15120046
Doug64 wrote:For the actual topic, check the title.

Check the title.

Check the title.

See the title.


.......

Didn’t you provide a total number of police shootings? That’s certainly a good place to start. Now you just need to find someone that’s determined how many of those shootings were unjustified.


I have no idea why you think the number used is close to the actual one. Considering the lack of any requirements to report these fatalities and brutalities, the offical number of deaths at the hands of cops is probably far lower than the actual number.

The first step is to force all cops to wear body cams and have third party investigators review the footage and then archive the info.

And I have no idea why you keep up bringing whether or not the killings are justified

Prove it.


I can provide evidence in support of the claim, like looking at the disproportionately high number of black men convicted for drug use, when the actual numbers show that white guys get stoned more often.

Or the massive difference in penalties for possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.

Plus, US policing and justice systems were openly and expressly racist until the civil rights movement came along in the 1960s. Since then, many changes have taken place, but the inherent racism in policing and the justice systems has never been addressed.

And we can verify if cops are racist by forcing all cops to wear body cams and have third party investigators review the footage and then archive the info.

Is that the kind of thing you are asking for?

On the topic of unconscious bias in US citizens, here is an interesting set of experiments:

    .....Eberhardt and colleagues at Stanford recruited 10 black and 10 white students and put them in an MRI machine while showing them photographs of white and black faces. When students viewed faces of their own race, brain areas involved in facial recognition lit up more than when viewing faces of other races. Students also had more trouble remembering faces of races other than their own.

    Same-race recognition isn’t inborn, Eberhardt says. It’s a matter of experience, acting on biology: If you grew up among white people, you learned to make fine distinctions among whites. “Those are the faces our brain is getting trained on.”

    Such learned perceptual biases, she thought, might shape reactions, too—in particular those at work in tense confrontations that can have a tragic outcome, such as when a police officer shoots an unarmed black man. She and colleagues did a series of experiments using the dot-probe paradigm, a well-known method of implanting subliminal images. She asked subjects (largely white) to stare at a dot on a computer screen while images—of a black face, a white face, or no face at all—flashed imperceptibly quickly off to one side.

    Then she would show a vague outline of an object that gradually came into focus. The subjects, who included both police officers and students, were asked to press a key as soon as they recognized the object. The object could be benign, such as a radio, or crimerelated, such as a gun. Subjects who had been primed with black faces recognized the weapon more quickly than participants who had seen white faces. In other words, seeing a black face—even subconsciously—prompted people to see the image of a gun.

    Then the researchers tried the experiment in reverse, flashing subliminal images of crime objects, such as a gun, followed by a brief image of a face in various parts of the screen. Those subjects primed by crimerelated objects were quicker to notice a black face.


    Eberhardt’s finding, added to earlier studies showing similar associations, suggests a dangerous sequence of cognitive events, especially in situations when adrenaline runs high. But the subconscious link between black faces and crime remains strong even when people have time to think, as other studies have shown.

    ...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03 ... es-society
#15120657
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea why you think the number used is close to the actual one. Considering the lack of any requirements to report these fatalities and brutalities, the offical number of deaths at the hands of cops is probably far lower than the actual number.

Please provide proof that police are not required to report fatal shootings on their part. Beyond that, are you admitting that there is no real data to back up your position?

The first step is to force all cops to wear body cams and have third party investigators review the footage and then archive the info.

This is actually something I approve of, and that is spreading through the states. It isn’t the be-all and end-all, though, since of course it doesn’t include what happens outside of the camera’s view.

And I have no idea why you keep up bringing whether or not the killings are justified

Because it’s fundamental to any analysis of police shootings?

I can provide evidence in support of the claim, like looking at the disproportionately high number of black men convicted for drug use, when the actual numbers show that white guys get stoned more often.

Or the massive difference in penalties for possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.

You know the second could explain the first, and seems more to me a bias against poverty than race—like Prohibition.

Plus, US policing and justice systems were openly and expressly racist until the civil rights movement came along in the 1960s. Since then, many changes have taken place, but the inherent racism in policing and the justice systems has never been addressed.

The ‘60’s were over two generations ago, please focus on the present.

Is that the kind of thing you are asking for?

On the topic of unconscious bias in US citizens, here is an interesting set of experiments:

Actually, no. If the studies had actually shown a difference between the races perhaps it might be proof of racism, but the only mention of the race of the participants I saw was of the cops, and in that case it worked the same whether the cops were White or Black. More likely, it’s a subconscious use of population-thinking, where the unknown individual is judged by the group. This is important and definitely needs to be dealt with, but is not racism if the group characteristics that are being used to make the judgments are objectively true. And if the basis for the subconscious judgments are in fact objective, then those subconscious judgments should change as those objective facts do.

And now for some news on the riots front.

Minneapolis City Council that pushed to dismantle police now irate at rising crime

    The Minneapolis City Council that passed a unanimous resolution in June for a “transformative new model” of law enforcement is confused and livid over rising crime and slow response times by cops.

    Police Chief Medaria Arradondo was peppered with questions by council members this week on everything from a spike in armed robberies to illegal street racing.

    “This is not new, but it is very concerning in the current context,” Council President Lisa Bender said of claims that cops were turning a blind eye to various crimes, the Star Tribune reported Wednesday. “So, I think there are a number of possible explanations for this. I think it’s possible they are essentially campaigning … because they don’t support the council member or, in some cases, the mayor, or perhaps they think that they are making the case for more resources for the department.”

    Another member, Phillipe Cunningham, said he was stunned by seesawing rhetoric by his peers since the May death of George Floyd while in police custody.

    “What I am sort of flabbergasted by is … colleagues who a very short time ago who were calling for abolition, who are now suggesting that we should be putting more funding and resources into MPD. We know that this is not producing different outcomes,” he said.

    The newspaper noted a macabre statistic regarding 59 homicides, which nearly doubles the city’s year-to-date average since 2015.

    “Too often, we as police departments, we are dealing in a reactionary mode,” the chief explained. “We have oftentimes come to finding crime as opposed to preventing it. If we just stayed status quo, right now, we will end this year with numbers that are absolutely unconscionable about what we should have in terms of community violence, and we don’t do a deep dive as a city as to what caused all of those.”

    The chief added that council members will be forced to make principled compromises if they are serious about changing the status quo.

    “That may mean you making commitments that might be uncomfortable for some of those constituents that you represent, but if your ultimate goal is to have true community safety, I will tell you right now, we have to work together in that effort,” Mr. Arradondo said.

AG Barr told prosecutors to charge violent protesters with sedition: Report

    Attorney General William P. Barr told federal prosecutors last week to charge violent demonstrators with a range of offenses, including sedition, a charge usually reserved for someone plotting to overthrow the government, according to a report Wednesday.

    Citing people familiar with the conversation, The Wall Street Journal reported Mr. Barr issued the instructions in a conference with U.S. attorneys across the country.

    Also in the call, Mr. Barr warned that the violent protests across the country could get worse as the Election Day approaches, according to the report. Mr. Barr urged the prosecutors to consider a number of federal counts when lodging charges, including sedition, a rarely used law, the Journal reported.

    Mr. Barr also urged prosecutors to file federal charges whenever possible, according to the report.

    A Justice Department spokesperson did not return a request for comment.

    So far, the Justice Department has filed federal charges against more than 200 defendants arrested during the rioting and looting that has spread across the country since the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in the custody of the Minneapolis police.

    However, the charges lodged are largely firearms violations, arson, and offenses related to failure to obey law enforcement.

    Sedition is punishable by 20 years in prison and is the act of inciting revolt or violence against the government or a lawful authority with the goal of overthrowing it.

    In order to score a conviction for sedition, prosecutors must prove that the defendant conspired to overthrow the government or harm government officials, including federal law enforcement. Simply advocating a government overthrow or injuring federal agents is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

    The last major sedition case in the United States is believed to have occurred in 2012. In that case, a federal judge in Michigan threw out the case against seven members of a U.S. Christian-based militia, ruling that prosecutors failed to prove that the defendants did more than talk about their hatred of the government.
#15120661
Doug64 wrote:Please provide proof that police are not required to report fatal shootings on their part. Beyond that, are you admitting that there is no real data to back up your position?


Hiw does this contradict the fact that many places in the US do not require cops to report shootings and killings, which is why the data is incomplete?

This is actually something I approve of, and that is spreading through the states. It isn’t the be-all and end-all, though, since of course it doesn’t include what happens outside of the camera’s view.


I did not ask if you approved or not.

But simply forcing cops to wear body cams is not a solution to all the killing and brutality. This is just a system so we can finally figure out just how much killing and brutality the coos actually get up to.

Because it’s fundamental to any analysis of police shootings?


Is it? How?

You know the second could explain the first, and seems more to me a bias against poverty than race—like Prohibition.


As long as you agree that black people go to jail for drug use more often even though white people do illegal drugs more often.

And that penalties for drug use are far harsher for drugs used in poor neighborhoods than in rich neighbourhoods for no good reason.

And that this creates a situation where black people deal with a disproportionately negative amount of policing and jail despite not committing more crime.

The ‘60’s were over two generations ago, please focus on the present.


And since you ignored my point, I will repeat it:

Despite making some types of racism illegal in the 60s, police departments have never addressed the inherent racism of policing, so that racism is still active IN THE PRESENT.

Actually, no. If the studies had actually shown a difference between the races perhaps it might be proof of racism, but the only mention of the race of the participants I saw was of the cops, and in that case it worked the same whether the cops were White or Black. More likely, it’s a subconscious use of population-thinking, where the unknown individual is judged by the group. This is important and definitely needs to be dealt with, but is not racism if the group characteristics that are being used to make the judgments are objectively true. And if the basis for the subconscious judgments are in fact objective, then those subconscious judgments should change as those objective facts do.


You are saying that people are more likely to see criminality when seeing black faces in their peripheral vision but this is not because of racism but because black people are objectively criminal. Got it.

And why do you keep bringing up riots when the issue is police brutality? Do riots somehow justify this sort of statist brutality?
#15120705
Lol @Pants-of-dog posting implicit bias research. Research shows that replicability of papers published at the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology - where the paper landed at - stands at around 25%, a pattern that also holds for this strand of literature of implicit bias in general.

Reading the gun result in particular, they only included 39 individuals in their final results. Seems entirely possible that the study is underpowered, and that it only got published because they managed to get p<0.05.
#15121436
Doug64 wrote:Please provide proof that police are not required to report fatal shootings on their part. Beyond that, are you admitting that there is no real data to back up your position?

Pants-of-dog wrote: Hiw does this contradict the fact that many places in the US do not require cops to report shootings and killings, which is why the data is incomplete?


:eh:
Doug64 wrote:Because [whether the killings are justified is] fundamental to any analysis of police shootings?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Is it? How?

:eh:

Those two statements and @wat0n‘s point about the problems of implicit bias research pretty much demonstrates that there’s no point debating this with you. But one last point:

Pants-of-dog wrote:And why do you keep bringing up riots when the issue is police brutality? Do riots somehow justify this sort of statist brutality?

Again, see the title of this thread.

And in the news most probably haven’t heard or read, seeing how it’s one of the Left’s greatest fears:

Black conservatives rise to counter Black Lives Matter narrative: 'Racism is dead, or damn near'

    The Black Lives Matter movement is dominating the headlines, but just as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, Black conservatives have never been more visible.

    From fresh faces like Diante Johnson and Rob Smith to greybeards like Shelby Steele and Robert Woodson, Black conservatives are everywhere, taking on the left and the Black Lives Matter narrative in speeches, bestsellers, films, radio shows, podcasts and PragerU videos, as well as regular appearances on Fox News.

    Such saturation didn’t happen overnight. Black intellectuals, media figures and activists have been gaining ground for years, but they were uniquely positioned to break out with the eruption in May of mass Black Lives Matter protests on the left spurred by the death of George Floyd.

    “I think what caused the profile of Black conservatives to rise on this issue is that we are giving facts, and the media are avoiding facts,” said Larry Elder, a longtime Los Angeles-based radio host also involved in television and documentary filmmaking.

    He disputes the contention that Black Americans are being hunted by racist police — “there’s no evidence suggesting they are doing so” — an argument that no White pundit, no matter how skilled, can deliver with the same resonance and credibility.

    “Because the media is invested in this ‘systemic racism’ narrative, they can’t tell the truth,” said Mr. Elder, a familiar face on Fox News. “Democrats can’t tell the truth because they want Blacks to remain angry. So it’s up to Black conservatives to get out the facts. How ironic.”

    His film “Uncle Tom,” an oral history of Black conservatives, topped the IMDB documentary list when it was released in June, and it’s still ranked in the top 10.

    The documentary features a who’s-who of Black conservatives, from sages like Mr. Woodson and Allen West, to rising stars like Candace Owens and Brandon Tatum, a former Tucson cop who hosts the popular “Officer Tatum” podcast and operates the Drudge-style Tatum Report.

    “I’m happy very happy to see so many young Blacks finally living out of that ethic as individuals,” said Mr. Steele, a Hoover Institution senior fellow. “They’re brave people. They’re truly brave people. And they probably can’t get from one day to the next without five or six arguments with people all around them. But God bless them, they’re the future.”

    New organizations are emerging. Four years ago, Mr. Johnson launched the Black Conservative Federation with a focus on Millennials. In 2018, Ms. Owens and Mr. Tatum launched the Blexit Foundation and the #Blexit hashtag, part of an effort to lead a “black exit” from the Democratic Party.

    In June, Black pastors founded Conservative Clergy of Color to “call out the systemic racism that lies in the heart and history of the Democratic Party,” and released on Wednesday a corporate diversity training alternative called, “Getting to All Lives Matter.”

    In a letter to federal officials using “white fragility” diversity programs, CCC co-founder Bishop Aubrey Shines said that the theory “pushed by self-proclaimed cultural scholars is only going to spread more divisiveness and distrust among your employees.”

    “You are spreading lies that one ethnicity is inherently evil, and moreover, you’ve adopted these teachings out of fear, which is the worst kind of incentive,” said the letter.

    ‘Proud to be Republicans’

    At the same time, the old guard appears to be undergoing a renaissance. In June, Thomas Sowell, a Hoover Institution senior fellow, economist, columnist and author, released “Charter Schools and Their Enemies” — shortly before his 90th birthday.

    Other Black conservatives are increasingly prominent, including former Vanderbilt University Carol Swain; civil-rights attorney Leo Terrell; Project 21 chairman Horace Cooper, and Kay Cole James, who took over as head of the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2017.

    Then there are radio hosts like David J. Harris Jr., author of the 2019 book “Why I Couldn’t Stay Silent: One Man’s Battle as a Black Conservative,” and SiriusXM’s David Webb, who was famously accused last year of having “White privilege” by a CNN analyst who didn’t realize he was Black.

    The move to electing Black Republicans has been slower to follow. Sen. Tim Scott, South Carolina Republican, and Rep. Will Hurd, Texas Republican, are the only Black GOP members of Congress, and Mr. Hurd plans to retire after the election.

    Mr. Steele said that may shift with the next generation. When he was young, he said, it was “inconceivable that you would shake hands with a Republican, and that’s changing.”

    “There are Blacks today who are proud to be Republicans, and that’s a healthy sign,” he said.

    Mr. Steele released Thursday the trailer to his upcoming documentary, “What Killed Michael Brown?” about the 2014 shooting of the 18-year-old Brown, who was Black, by White Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, an episode that touched off mass rioting.

    Mr. Steele’s conclusions are unlikely to meet with the approval of Black Lives Matter, which has argued that “systemic racism” is responsible for woes such as poverty, incarceration and police shootings, calling for government reparations and moving funding from police departments to social services.

    “Their story line is that we’re all victims. White supremacy. Some esoteric arguments of how we’re all oppressed and demeaned and diminished constantly,” said Mr. Steele. “That’s an attempt to expand victimization.”

    High-profile deaths of Black men at the hands of police “all seem to trigger the same sort of reflexive pattern in American life, particularly in the way they’re covered in the media,” he said.

    “There’s this rush, this almost desperate frenzy to see the event an example of black victimization, to establish it as black victimization, and that in a sense becomes the argument,” said Mr. Steele on a Thursday press call. “That tells me at any rate that that’s where the power is.”

    He contrasted that reaction with the muted response to the 762 homicides in Chicago in 2016, many if not most of which involved Black victims.

    “In Chicago, 762 kids in one year killed. No national coverage at all,” said Mr. Steele. “It tells me again one of the ideas we try to bring to bear on these events is the idea of White guilt, which is relatively new phenomenon.”

    Mr. Steele, 74, said that when he was growing up, “Whites didn’t feel guilty,” but today they do, and that the “rewards are immense” for Black people pushing the victimization narrative.

    “We’ve used that power. The problem with that is that we do that at the expense of our own development as individual human beings in the modern world,” Mr. Steele said. “We continue to decline, and so all we’ve got left is to just work this victim thing as long as Whites will take it. And Whites feel so guilty that they take it.”

    He urged Black Americans to identify with their citizenship instead of their race.

    “We have to show courage in our own personal individual life,” Mr. Steele said. “Say it and be proud of saying that racism is dead, or damn near. There’s no one holding me back.”
#15121441
Doug64 wrote::eh:


It is a fact that there is no mandate forcing PDs to keep track of shootings and deaths.

The numbers being used now are the product of independent groups like the press, and the few PDs that actually keep track.

While the numbers gathered by these groups gives us a rough idea of how lethal and brutal US cops are, the numbers being used are probably undercounting the violence.

These are all verifiable facts.

:eh:

Those two statements .....


If you cannot even explain your argument, there is no point for me to address.

and @wat0n‘s point about the problems of implicit bias research pretty much demonstrates that there’s no point debating this with you. But one last point:

Again, see the title of this thread.


There is no argument here.

So you have no good reason to bring up the riots.

Do you know why people riot?

Maybe you can read Washington Times articles until you see an argument that you can copy and paste.
#15122055
While Justice Ginsburg’s death is grabbing everyone’s attention, the Left-wing mobs are still out there. And some of their supporters have rediscovered the Federalist principle, imagine that. It would be hilarious if the Republicans manage to confirm RGB’s replacement, and the (hopefully) resulting Originalist majority moves to shut down the ability of the Federal government to pull unconstitutional stunts like this.

DOJ declares New York, Portland and Seattle 'anarchist jurisdictions,' moves to cut federal funding

    The Justice Department on Monday declared New York, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, “anarchist jurisdictions,” the first step toward revoking federal funding from those cities because they allowed violence and mayhem to persist during racial justice protests.

    The designation of the cities, which are all led by Democrats, is in response to President Trump’s order this month to cut off federal aid to places with unchecked rioting in the streets.

    He ordered federal funds withheld from cities where state and local officials slashed police budgets, refused help from federal officers and otherwise refused to rein in the violence.

    By labeling the cities “anarchist jurisdictions,” Attorney General William Barr escalated Mr. Trump’s conflict with the Democratic leaders. Mr. Trump has been campaigning on a law-and-order platform while blasting Democrats for the rising crime and violence.

    Much of the crime and looting plaguing the cities has been increasing since late May, when George Floyd, a Black man, died while in the custody of Minneapolis police.

    Mr. Barr said the three cities he singled out have “refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities.”

    “When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” Mr. Barr said.

    “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance.”

    The Democratic mayors of the three cities accused the Trump administration of playing “cheap political games.”

    “Our cities are bringing communities together; our cities are pushing forward after fighting back a pandemic and facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, all despite recklessness and partisanship from the White House,” Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said in a joint statement. “What the Trump administration is engaging in now is more of what we’ve seen all along: shirking responsibility and placing blame elsewhere to cover its failures.”

    New York made the list because the number of shootings rose 177% from July 2019 to July 2020, the Justice Department said.

    Amid the rising violence, Mr. de Blasio and the New York City Council agreed to cut $1 billion from the city’s police budget.

    Portland was included because of its more than 100 consecutive nights of violence and protests since Floyd’s death. Mr. Wheeler, who also serves as police commissioner, has explicitly rejected federal help as the violence increases.

    Mr. Wheeler issued a ban two weeks ago on the police’s use of tear gas, drawing a vehement denunciation from his police department, which issued a statement saying tear gas is among the less-violent ways to deal with the type of unrest the city has encountered.

    Mr. Wheeler did request that Gov. Kate Brown deploy the National Guard, but she has refused — and also rebuffed Mr. Trump’s demand that she request federal help.

    A skirmish between Trump supporters and Antifa activists last month led to the death of Aaron Danielson. A supporter for the right-wing Patriot Payer Group, Danielson was allegedly killed by Michael Reinoehl, a pro-Antifa demonstrator who was killed by authorities days later.

    The Portland City Council voted over the summer to trim $15 million from the police bureau’s $242 million budget but rejected a broader $50 million cut.

    Seattle, meanwhile, was listed because of its “autonomous zone,” a police-free, six-block area in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, the Justice Department said.

    Seattle voted in August to cut its police budget by roughly $3 million.

    Law enforcement was barred from entering the territory where crimes involving people increased by 525% in June from the same period last year, according to the Justice Department.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said she was preparing legal action to fight the designation. She fumed that Mr. Trump was trying to “scare the country” into reelecting him.

    “The president should be prepared to defend this illegal order in court, which hypocritically lays out the groundwork to defund New York and the very types of law enforcement President Trump pretends to care about,” she said. “We have beat the president and the illegal actions of his DOJ in court before and have no doubt we will beat them again.”

    Jim Johnson, an attorney for New York City, also vowed to fight the order in court.

    Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said the administration will face an uphill battle if the feud moves into federal court.

    “There is nothing in the Constitution that says jurisdictions need to take certain actions outlined in the memo,” Mr. Somin told The Washington Times. “Many of the cities handled the riots poorly, but that doesn’t mean the federal government can dictate their policies.”

    Mr. Somin compared the battle to the Trump administration’s vow to halt aid to so-called sanctuary cities that have blocked local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

    A federal appeals court in May handed the administration a defeat on the issue, ruling that the federal government cannot condition federal funds on local policing decisions.

    “Actually withholding the funds may be illegal depending on what the funds are used for,” Mr. Somin said. “If they do go to the next stage, then you would get a court to assess this similar to the sanctuary city issue.”

    The Justice Department did not detail which federal funds would be cut from the cities. White House Budget Director Russell Vought is expected to issue guidance to federal agencies in the coming weeks.

    Federal funds flowing from the Justice Department are largely doled out by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) and the Office of Justice Programs, which are dedicated to bolstering local law enforcement resources.

    The Justice Department did not respond to a question about which grant programs would be on the chopping block.

    It is not clear how much funding from those programs goes to the cities on Mr. Barr’s hit list or whether other Justice Department funding programs, such as the Office on Violence Against Women, which hands out funds to combat domestic violence, could be affected.

    New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, while blasting the Justice Department decision, said his state receives $7.4 billion in federal funding, although it is not clear how much of that amount comes from the Justice Department.

    Mr. Barr said a city can be named an “anarchist jurisdiction” if it forbids police from restoring order amid widespread violence; it has withdrawn law enforcement protection from a geographic area or prevented law enforcement from accessing a certain area; if it has defunded or removed power from the police; or if it refuses to accept assistance of federal law enforcement.

    A city also can be added to the list under any other related factors deemed appropriate by the attorney general, he said.
#15122068
Doug64 wrote:While Justice Ginsburg’s death is grabbing everyone’s attention, the Left-wing mobs are still out there.


Calling them “left wings mobs” is not an argument. It is just a bad attempt at insulting people and trying to frame the debate.

And some of their supporters have rediscovered the Federalist principle, imagine that. It would be hilarious if the Republicans manage to confirm RGB’s replacement, and the (hopefully) resulting Originalist majority moves to shut down the ability of the Federal government to pull unconstitutional stunts like this.


So you oppose the federal government withholding money from cities for allowing protests?
#15122079
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you oppose the federal government withholding money from cities for allowing protests?

I don’t think the Federal government should be giving them the money in the first place, if the funds cannot be linked to an enumerated power either directly or through the “necessary and proper” clause then Washington shouldn’t be spending them. But if Washington insists on dumping bucketloads of cash on the states instead of just cutting taxes so the states can raise the money themselves through their own taxes, then those funds should be in the nature of broad block grants that the states are free to spend for the general purpose however they choose.

But more specifically, no, I think that any attempt by Washington to use its spending authority to force states to adopt policies over which Washington has no authority to begin with is flagrantly unconstitutional and should be struck down by the courts. Unfortunately, that gets in the way of the Left’s desire—at least until recently—to destroy our federalist system in order to turn the US into a European-style unitary government. That’s what kicked off the second English civil war (known here as the American Revolution), and it might eventually kick off the fourth (or at least the third secession).
#15122081
Doug64 wrote:....
But more specifically, no, I think that any attempt by Washington to use its spending authority to force states to adopt policies over which Washington has no authority to begin with is flagrantly unconstitutional and should be struck down by the courts.


So you think Trump is acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Unfortunately, that gets in the way of the Left’s desire—at least until recently—to destroy our federalist system in order to turn the US into a European-style unitary government. That’s what kicked off the second English civil war (known here as the American Revolution), and it might eventually kick off the fourth (or at least the third secession).


This seems like a weird projection about leftists and an unrealistic fantasy about violence.
#15123372
For months, both the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon have refused to take the steps needed to shut down the Leftist violence that has been so damaging to that city (and helped fuel Trump's re-election efforts). But let the Proud Boys announce that they are going to hold their own protests, and the governor leaps into action!

Oregon governor warns of violence ahead of Proud Boys rally in Portland, sends in state police

    Oregon Gov. Kate Brown declared a state of emergency in Portland as the Democrat prepared for potential violence ahead of members of the Proud Boys group holding a rally in the city this Saturday.

    Ms. Brown said Friday she was exercising her authority as governor to put the heads of the Oregon state police and Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office in charge of public safety in Portland this weekend.

    Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler agreed to and supports the plan, the governor added. Mr. Wheeler, a Democrat, spoke out against the Proud Boys and their planned gathering in a statement issued separately.

    The Proud Boys, a controversial men’s-only group whose members have previously clashed in public with counter-protesters, are set to hold an event Saturday afternoon in a park in north Portland.

    “They are expecting a significant crowd — some people will be armed, with others ready to harass or intimidate Oregonians. Many are from out of state,” Ms. Brown said at a press conference Friday.

    Protesters opposed to the Proud Boys are set to rally in Portland as well, raising concerns about likely clashes and contributing to what the governor called an “increased risk of violence” this weekend.

    Ms. Brown explained she was accordingly exercising her authority under Oregon’s state of emergency statute to establish a unified command structure among regional law enforcement agencies.

    “It will create a collective, collaborative approach, bringing all of our law enforcement officials together to make sure that we can work to keep people safe throughout the weekend and that folks can participate in free speech activities peacefully,” she said.

    “Our law enforcement is absolutely committed to protecting free speech and they are going to work extremely hard to deescalate the situation by keeping the groups apart,” the governor said Friday.

    Mr. Wheeler, Portland’s mayor, joined more than a dozen other local and state elected officials in denouncing the rally in advance, meanwhile.

    “The event poses a physical danger to Portland residents, as clearly shown by the organizers’ long track record of assaults, confrontations and threats against elected officials and the citizenry of Portland,” they said in a statement Friday.

And amazingly, it seems to have worked--Saturday passed relatively peacefully.

Portland 'relatively peaceful' amid dueling weekend protests

    Competing protests by far-right and left-wing demonstrators went off largely peacefully Saturday in Portland, Oregon ...

    The dueling demonstrations had sparked a wave of concern after a similar set of protests last month resulted in one of the far-right activists being shot and killed by one of the antifa backers.

    Police surged into the city, with Gov. Kate Brown deploying Oregon State Police and having them and the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office cooperate with the Portland Police Bureau under a unified command.

    The police also were sworn in as deputy U.S. marshals, allowing federal prosecutors to bring charges against anyone who assaulted them.

    It appears to have worked.

    “Events remained relatively peaceful Saturday afternoon because of good operational planning, an abundance of resources available under the Unified Command structure and effective communication and coordination between all the agencies involved,” State Police Superintendent Travis Hampton and Sheriff Mike Reese said in a statement.

    About 1,000 people gathered in one park where the right-wing protesters were scheduled to be. Police reported one assault on a person who was videotaping the gathering, and confiscated some guns, baseball bats and shields. Two people were cited for gun charges.

    A group of about 1,000 people gathered in another park for the left-wing demonstration. Police said they confiscated some shields but didn’t need to take any other action.

So the increased police presence was what kept things peaceful, right? Maybe not....

    ... but the leftists returned for a more confrontational clash with police later in the evening....

    After the afternoon events, some left-wing demonstrators regrouped downtown and blocked streets near the Judicial Center.

    Police declared it an unlawful assembly and moved in to make arrests, while being pelted with cans, firecrackers, rocks and ball bearings fired from wrist-mounted slingshots. Police also confiscated a can of bear repellent.

    No tear gas was used at any of the events, police said.

It looks to me like the day was relatively peaceful because the real thugs didn't let the presence of the Proud Boys distract them from their routine of leaving the days to the peaceful protesters, and coming out at night to attack the police.
Election 2020

Is Romney committing political suicide by being on[…]

The above quote is written with absolutely no und[…]

So it comes to this.

I am simply pointing out that you are way too cen[…]

@Oxymoron The Air Force has the highest allowa[…]