The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Guest nsplayr]

4 hours ago, Breckey said:

Anybody want to discuss the fully kitted out Federal officers in Portland? Why do Federal officers need to wear head to toe multicam and look like they're going to raid a compound? I know that companies make black and blue tactical gear.

Not a fan. Everyone who was tweaking over Jade Helm should be damn near ready to start the revolution over federal law enforcement without name tags or badges doing snatch-and-grabs from unmarked minivans on the streets of a US city against the wishes of the Governor, Mayor and Sheriff. The protest situation in Portland is not great, but I once again raise the idea that all parties need to de-escalate violence, not ramp it up with even more aggressive tactics. Good primer on some of the legal questions here.

Also meme for the lolz to make my point more succinctly:

[brabus]

I think we continue to prove how we as a nation are completely incapable of the middle ground. Violent protestors, looters, etc. need to get shut down immediately. It’s bullshit they’ve been allowed to do what they’ve done. BUT, they need to be shut down legally and with as minimal force as required to get the job done. The shit going down with this federal action is just as much the type of stuff we fight to prevent as stopping the dipshits taking over portions of cities and destroying/looting/trying to dismantle the country. They’re both bad, and the people who don’t see that are blinded for one or more reasons. 

[brickhistory]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Not a fan. Everyone who was tweaking over Jade Helm should be damn near ready to start the revolution over federal law enforcement without name tags or badges doing snatch-and-grabs from unmarked minivans on the streets of a US city against the wishes of the Governor, Mayor and Sheriff. The protest situation in Portland is not great, but I once again raise the idea that all parties need to de-escalate violence, not ramp it up with even more aggressive tactics. Good primer on some of the legal questions here.

 

As reported by the same outlets who brought you "Russia, Russia, Russia."

Have you known ANY USG program that wasn't leaked especially if it makes Orange Man Bad point?  If rioters are being arrested, I'm looking for proof that they have been unconstitutionally done so.  Not the reporting on the "peaceful" protests thus far.

 

But you were fine when Obama smoked an American citizen simply on his say-so.

[Guest nsplayr]

28 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

As reported by the same outlets who brought you "Russia, Russia, Russia."

Have you known ANY USG program that wasn't leaked especially if it makes Orange Man Bad point?  If rioters are being arrested, I'm looking for proof that they have been unconstitutionally done so.  Not the reporting on the "peaceful" protests thus far.

 

But you were fine when Obama smoked an American citizen simply on his say-so.

Don't attack strawmen like the media or "leakers." Can you defend what's going on?

The Governor of Oregon, Mayor of Portland and local Sheriff are all telling federal LEOs to leave. The President confirms that federal LEOs are there at his direction. Cucinelli (acting deputy DHS) acknowledges that federal LEOs are using unmarked vehicles to snatch-and-grab suspects and that in at least one instance (the guy who's story is out there), they grabbed the wrong person.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland

I an not libertarian, not even close. Many times I'm supportive of federal action that goes against the wishes of individual states in the name of having a unified national strategy to combat shared challenges. I am also generally supportive of law enforcement and tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those folks.

So I'm asking folks who are more libertarian than me - can we agree that law enforcement officers dressed in multicam tac gear and without name tags or badges should not be driving around American cities in unmarked vehicles snatching people off the streets?

Violent protests are bad and I don't support them. Portlanders, bless their hearts, are strange. But in trying to contain and eventually end protests that tend to get chaotic at night, let's not jump to supporting a wildly disproportionate escalation of force by law enforcement agencies that are not supported by any level of local officials in the area in question.

I'm also 100% fine with killing Awlaki, yes, I've said that many times. I was there, literally trying to kill him personally if the opportunity presented itself. I'm also a card-carrying member of the ACLU but they were wrong to oppose his targeting and killing.

Having seen some of the intelligence that was made available to us, he was unquestionably bad, dangerous, an imminent threat, and actively working to inspire more attacks against Americans. The fact that he was a US citizen who fled to Yemen where there was basically zero hope for arrest should not and did not shield him from justice. If AQAP were a foreign state actor and he as a AMCIT had joined up with them, we would be justified in killing him on a battlefield. AQAP being a non-state actor does add some gray area to the equation, but not much IMHO.

Edited July 20, 2020 by nsplayr

[di1630]

WTF does it matter how the police are dressed?

I’m all for a good peaceful protest but the simple fact is, the far left cannot stop at that. They’ll push things further and further until they get a reaction.

No problem with police in tactical gear, don’t give a foook the design.

And I laugh when Antifa is smacked down.

I’m a softcore libertarian but when people go too far (usually the left) I expect the taxpayer funded gov’t to lay the smack down to protect the average citizen.

I thought maybe I’d vote for the libertarian this election like I did in 16....now I’m firmly in the Trump camp.

The progressive left must be stopped.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Breckey]

There's always more to the story.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.htm

Quote

The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture.

It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.

Quote

The protest moved north on Kingshighway again. At Portland Place, protester Derk Brown’s live feed shows he is one of the first protesters to pass through the iron gate held open by protester Tory Russell.

Although the McCloskeys have displayed photos of a crumpled gate as evidence the protesters broke it down, the feed shows the gate is intact. It was not clear when it was damaged.

Quote

The first few protesters who enter the private neighborhood swerve away from the McCloskey house to walk in the street.

Immediately, Brown’s feed captures Mark McCloskey under a massive portico on the east side of his mansion. “Hey!” he can be heard shouting. “Private neighborhood! Get the hell out of my neighborhood!”

None of the protesters are on his property — even the disputed triangle.

 

[Sim]

Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking victorious.

[magnetfreezer]

20 hours ago, Breckey said:

There's always more to the story.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.htm

 

Several other articles such as https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/30/were-mark-and-patricia-mccloskey-within-their-rights-to-point-guns-at-protesters/ mention the entire neighborhood was private property (gated). If that is the case the protestors were still trespassing when they entered the neighborhood streets.

[di1630]

WTF does it matter how the protestors are dressed?

I'm all for a good peaceful protest but the simple fact is, the far right cannot stop at that. They'll push things further and further until they get a reaction.

No problem with protestors in tactical gear, don't give a foook the design.

And I laugh when right nationalists get smacked down.

I'm a softcore libertarian but when people go too far (usually the right) I expect the citizens of the state to push back to protect the average citizen's constitutional rights.

I thought maybe I'd vote for the libertarian this election like I did in 16....now I'm firmly opposed to the Trump camp.

The authoritarian right must be stopped.

Yeah ok. If you think a bunch of civilians forming a violent mob and wrecking property is the same as police protecting that property, JFC.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[brickhistory]

Somebody found their old debate book glossary...

 

 

Curious to know if "left nationalists" are ok.  Is it the political leaning or the "nationalist" part that so offends you?

[di1630]

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[di1630]

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[lloyd christmas]

36 minutes ago, brawnie said:

Yeah ok. If you think a bunch of law enforcement hiding their identities and assaulting citizens with no charges is the same as police protecting property, JFC.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Are you saying you are opposed to the police using unmarked vehicles?  I may have missed it, but I don't see any evidence of the feds "hiding their identities" other than riding around in unmarked cars.  It seems pretty obvious who they are when they are dressed head to toe in tactical gear.  And I can guarantee you they are announcing who they are as they approach a subject.  This may have been said before, but it seems logical to arrest someone when they are away from the crowd.  That protects the perp, the officers and would not escalate things.  It certainly is better than having the feds roll down main street Portland completely overwhelming these rioters.  Either way, you can't destroy property for over 50 days with no consequences.  There are law abiding citizens of Portland who deserve to have their lives and property protected.  Enough is enough.  

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, brawnie said:

What do you think about the fact that legalization of marijuana has been relatively successful in many states and countries up to this point? That is, it hasn't caused mass homelessness or deaths or mental illness, and its legalization has actually made its purchase safer while allowing the government to collect revenue (and simultaneously defunding drug dealers). 

Does this make you think that an overarching "war on drugs" is maybe a bit too broad? Maybe the policies of the past were... wrong?

Don't think relatively successful is how to describe it, I would call it a wash with a light residue left behind.  Plenty of evidence of that it is not all sunshine and rainbows when you legalize it at the state level, still illegally federally but hey that's just a rule of law issue, who cares about that stuff anymore?

I'm not for legalization as it is now, I would be for it if it came with stringent regulation to better control what is sold to the public like alcohol is, the weed that is out there now is different than the dope old boomers smoked in the 60s - more potent and the delivery methods being used by the young and foolish (illegal vaping products) are causing injury/deaths.   But like I said, if legalization were done differently and legally in accordance with the primacy of federal laws over state laws, legalization/regulation at the federal level first then states tailoring their laws inside the parameters of that overarching legal limit(s).

I went on a Google spree just to cite some evidence of my neutral to slightly negative assessment of state legalization, looks like other states are taking a pause to legalization as it is a mixed bag at best in the states that have legalized.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191113153049.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/27/marijuana-legal-homeless-denver-colorado

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/03/us/colorado-survey-suggests-legal-marijuana-attracting-homeless/index.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-13/pot-legal-states-struggle-to-stem-rise-in-driving-while-stoned

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/30/marijuana-legalization-may-increasing-number-stoned-drivers/4603105002/

https://www.rti.org/news/new-study-suggests-medical-marijuana-legalization-may-be-associated-higher-rates-mental-illness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6461328/

https://www.mhanational.org/risky-business-marijuana-use

That's not a big bunch of monkey shit I'm throwing at your post but just want to make the point that weed is a vice like many in our society, to be tolerated on a tight leash but not really embraced.

Don't think the policies of the past were wrong per se if you mean the declaration by Pres Nixon of the War on Drugs in 1971 but as you say they were the past, they were what the people then making the decisions thought was the right thing to do and now we can study the results.  That is NOT support to the fallacious idea of saying if they just did X (some more lenient policy) it would have been so much better.  You or I can't prove a hypothetical that would have been done in the past to cause some outcome, we can only speculate.  

Should drug laws, policy towards the illegal drugs in the USA and abroad where we choose to support PNs in counter narcotics be monitored and updated to get the best results and operate inside of our values?  Yup.

Should we continue the War on Drugs?  Yup.  It's my two cents you never get a break from fighting for your society, values and culture.  Like everything living in nature it must constantly strive and fight for its place otherwise it will be no more.

Anyway, that's my rant for the night.  As we are discussing the War on Drugs I will offer this podcast episode I listened to on the subject recently, worth the hour investment of time IMHO:

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[Breckey]

Or cops hitting and pepper spraying an individual literally standing in front of them without any apparent malice or hostile intent.

[Danger41]

19 minutes ago, brawnie said:

I am opposed to police arresting people with no basis and not being held responsible. Since they are using unmarked cars and obfuscating their badge numbers and identities to do it, yes, I am opposed to those things as well. Here's the last couple months in America:

I am opposed to cops shooting home owners with rubber bullets when they are video taping off of the porch of their own property: https://streamable.com/u2jzoo

I am opposed to cops beating suspects that are cuffed: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/7e1074c8-1f77-4922-b088-4a2069f5b23e (have about 50 more of these, let me know)

I am opposed to cops shooting at people just for recording them: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/b702c820-1837-4025-8a08-91e8a3cdff07

I am opposed to cops giving preferential warning to the Proud Boys (white nationalists) before breaking up groups: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/aec4e019-59bc-4eec-b119-df877024ce57

I am opposed to cops using tactics like getting 6" away from people or literally stopping in front of them to claim that they were assaulted and then arresting them unjustly: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/70c2a732-a9b6-4d5d-8ce4-81625742ccd4

https://peertube.live/videos/watch/8ba7a5d9-7e63-4dc5-a193-e0330c20cee2

I am opposed to cops over-aggressing and using chokeholds on people half their size while pretending that they are the good guys: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/55b36828-a647-478e-87f9-810fc7ab7a55

 

None of these incidents has resulted in a criminal charge. And you aren't going to watch any of them because your mind is already made up.

Thanks for the videos. I watched all you linked and would offer a perspective from someone pitching in as an outsider. Is it possible that “your mind is already made up” on some of these? I suffer from a condition where I try to look at things objectively and it’s hard to do that in 15-30 second clips. 
 

*All of the below are for personal edification so please take the questions as such*

1. Rubber bullets at the house. What was the situation in that area that required that level of police presence? Had they been threatened and/or shot at from porches in that neighborhood? They were repeatedly told to go inside and continued filming. I don’t know the context.
 

2. Beating the cuffed suspect. Looks bad, is bad. What is the objective legal criteria for when a cop has a suspect under control? I doubt it’s handcuffs because someone can still thrash and do a lot of damage while cuffed. Once again, I don’t know.

3. Shot at while being recorded. This one shows me absolutely no proof where that came from and is the ultimate case of a pre-conceived notion fitting a narrative.

4. Proud Boys treatment. Should they get directly in their face and demand that they disperse with force? Or should a cop defuse a situation and get some guys to leave an area? Looks like the type of de-escalatory policing that everyone says they want. A key element of this one is the posture of the suspects. They were standing around and drinking a beer for crying out loud. The tactics work there. Can’t do that with a group screaming into your face. However, it’s once again a short clip that I don’t know the context.

5. Getting in the protesters way. Look at the manner in which that protester is conducting his protest. I don’t buy it, but I can see how an argument could be made that the cop felt threatened by his actions. I thought this one was very cut and dry that cops were in the wrong here.

6. Chokehold on the woman. Looks terrible from where the video started. No idea what happened before it to justify that. It was very rough, but I don’t see the cop doing anything excessive to secure her. You could tell how hard he was choking her (not very) by how well she was able to talk less than 15 seconds after he released her. 
 

I absolutely think that policing (and the criminal justice system in this country as a whole) needs a major overhaul. The fact that many police are acquitted in the deaths of suspects (Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, and Rodney King are three that still make zero sense to me along with many others) is unbelievable and pisses me off. It also pisses me off that leadership at various levels of the government allow something like Portland or CHAZ/CHOP to occur. Protesting is great and I encourage concerned citizens to exercise their first amendment rights. However, if it devolves into an ugly riotous situation, it’s going to look ugly as it’s broken up and everyone with a phone can get that ten second video of a cop smashing a suspect. 
 

This post is partly me playing devil’s advocate (probably a poor phrase given context) and partly me being genuinely curious to understand the issues from both sides. 

[Clark Griswold]

Valid points. The biggest one that I didn't realize is that DUI (of marijuana) is probably an increasing crime that needs to be dealt with somehow. I still think that legalizing it is better for society than jailing and ruining people's lives/productivity.

I actually listened to this podcast recently, and I seem to remember him arguing that legalization is actually what would help dismantle the cartels' power, it's just that legalization of cocaine/heroin is so outside of society's political realm that it's unfeasible. With that being said, I have a friend that is going to die of heroin addiction, and I do not believe that heroin/meth/opiods should be legal. At the same time, I do not believe that jailing those that use the drugs actually fixes the problem. In America, the moment you are arrested for doing meth, your life is over for good - there is no redemption, there is no way to remove that, there is no making up for it. Treating drug abuse purely as a crime is a short-sighted approach that doesn't hit the root cause.

I am truly sorry for your friend and hope that he is the outlier that makes it to the other side.

Concur on partial legalization but not full, it’s not a perfect policy (there is none) but it likely better than what we have now.
Agree on the long term and stigmatized extremely negative effect of a singular encounter or even a second with the criminal justice system for possession and personal use. Distribution is entirely different.
There should be some paths to redemption for some offenses, there is a point where there is not but that point should be quite a ways to cross, not easily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[di1630]

In this thread: "patriot" shows no concern for authoritarian, unconstitutional actions because it's happening to someone with views different than their own. I'm sure with your vast wealth of historical knowledge you will understand this reference:

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist."

I got one just for you




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[busdriver]

Proud Boys (white nationalists) .

You happen to see a picture of the dude who took over "leadership" of that group after McGuiness bailed?

The corporate press seems to have a complete inability to understand internet culture. My guess is they have to smash everything into the boxes that define their world view. And that's how you get a "white nationalist" organization with an Hispanic leader

Old school men's club type gang is probably more accurate.

[SurelySerious]

5 minutes ago, brawnie said:

You mad bro?

If you are still feeling as edgy, here, you can edit the rest of the saying:

For as much as you decry ad hominem and straw man, you sure do a lot of it. 

[Guest nsplayr]

24 minutes ago, busdriver said:

And that's how you get a "white nationalist" organization with an Hispanic leader

Relevant video, especially since McInnes founded Vice in the 90s: 

 

24 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Old school men's club type gang is probably more accurate.

I mean...that's being extremely generous based on the types of activities they do. I mean some of the Proud Boys chanted, "Jews will not replace us!" in Charlottesville so 🤷‍♂️ Not the type of dudes I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to in the vein of, "Oh, we're reformed, etc. etc." after all the shit press from that event.

Edited July 22, 2020 by nsplayr

[di1630]

It started with an honest attempt at discourse with di1630. I guess the only thing you can do is just ignore him.
Is it a lot if it happened one time?
Cheers.

Not mad at all. Questioning your honest attempt at discourse, as all I got was reworded paragraphs. But no matter.

I’m happy to engage in real discourse.

I haven’t found a leftist yet I can’t pummel in a logical argument until they call me a racist or Nazi simply because I disagree.



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[pawnman]

54 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

I think anyone with a rational mind has a divided feeling on the federal officers in Portland. On one side, the rioters have been attacking that federal courthouse and the property surrounding it fairly consistently, and you know that DHS is running their own intelligence on who they think is behind it. They kind of have to use unmarked cars to pick up those folks, because there's zero chance Antifa will let them if they're together in a massive group. Their tactical clothing is bad optics, imo, but not illegal. The other side though is... do we really want to give Antifa/the left a talking point of "abductions" (even thought they're being booked and released)? That's a tough one. Also, they're following the book and taking the people they're detaining to a precinct or jail... but what if the officers weren't so just and people were being abused? Anytime the government flexes its muscle domestically its not a great thing.

So, as a conservative I feel as if I'm being consistent in that I'm not cheering it, per se... but I'm also not decrying it. If we have documented cases of real abductions and/or people being tortured? Different story. Desperate times (mayors/cities refusing to institute rule of law) do call for desperate measures, and so far the government response hasn't veered into fascism. Despite what Twitter says.

As for legalizing drugs, that's a pass from me. I've had family members killed from them. Weed I'll go along with, but we need a concrete way to prevent weed-related DWIs first. I also think that tough laws should exist as to where one can smoke it. Secondhand smoke sucks in general, but no one is getting high from a person smoking a cigar nearby. Some dude getting high from a joint could very well impair the surrounding area via secondhand highs if the circulation is shit.

Also, as a member of the military...I'm not a big fan of federal law enforcement putting on very similar uniforms and conducting these anonymous raids.  As if I didn't have enough to worry about from ISIS and Al Qaeda, now DHS is putting a target on my back for every antifa and BLM wannabe revolutionary.

I'm also not a fan at all of the anonymous aspect.  When they talk about "unmarked", the don't mean the "police" velcro on the uniform.  They mean that there are no visible badge numbers, nametags, or other identification.  No way to hold a bad cop accountable, because no one knows who it is.  My personal thought is that you don't need to hide your name from the people paying your salary unless you're doing something shady.

[Homestar]

9 minutes ago, pawnman said:

My personal thought is that you don't need to hide your name from the people paying your salary unless you're doing something shady.

Lots of undercover work is done with police anonymity for their own safety.

[Sim]

 

13 hours ago, brawnie said:

I thought maybe I'd vote for the libertarian this election like I did in 16....now I'm firmly opposed to the Trump camp.