• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should feds be sent back to Portland?

Should feds go back to Portland

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • No

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
2

2distracted

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
486
Location
USA
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should Trump send federal officers back to rioting Portland?

As soon as they left, the violence and chaos resumed...

I believe this was the city where the thugs tried to burn a police precinct when there were people inside! And the #&@ tried to trap them inside..!

America is not so great when this stuff is allowed to happen.

Recall all D leaders in Portland
 
Last edited:
2distracted said:
Should Trump send federal officers back to rioting Portland?

As soon as they left, the violence and chaos resumed...

I believe this was the city where the thugs tried to burn a police precinct when there were people inside! And the #&@ tried to trap them inside..!

America is not so great when this stuff is allowed to happen.

Recall all D leaders in Portland
Click to expand...

Maybe.

1. The only reason the feds were there was to protect the federal buildings from anarchist attacks. Those attacks seem to have ended.

2. The anarchists have turned their attention to city buildings. The city is responsible for protecting those places. Not the feds.

3. If the city or state asks for help, fine. They can give control over to the feds who will activate the National Guard and deal with the anarchists for once and for all.

4. But if the city or state doesn't ask for help and if the anarchists stay away from the federal buildings, then the feds stand down (but remain at the ready).
 
Yes. I wish to watch the train wreck again.

Anything that causes more chaos in the nation between now and November is fine by me.
 
Yes. Fox News desperately needs more secret police to worsen the situation so that there's more video clips of rioting so that more anonymous debate forum posters can use those clips to propagate narrative of city dysfunction so they can continue in the circle jerk belief that they're better than liberals.
 
Yeah, things have calmed down and there aren't enough photo ops for our law and order president. And you know how much he loves to see himself in pictures. Oh wait, he wont be there. Still. great shots of Biden's America.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes. Fox News desperately needs more secret police to worsen the situation so that there's more video clips of rioting so that more anonymous debate forum posters can use those clips to propagate narrative of city dysfunction so they can continue in the circle jerk belief that they're better than liberals.
Click to expand...

Fox is just feeding our taste for the sensational and violent. It's not some conspiracy to elect the pres. It may damage some people's image of liberals, but most people are smart enough to know what is happening in Portland isn't liberals. It's terrorists.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Yes.

Lives matter.
Click to expand...
:2funny:

You are okay with 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 dead Americans. Freedumbs mean more to you.

Do not claim that "lives matter" when it is bloody obvious that you don't believe it. :)
 
Phys251 said:
Prove it by declaring yourself in favor of a nationwide mask mandate.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind that, but it would have to specify exactly where people were required to mask up, and where they weren't.

And if you all are in favor of the federal government having that much power, then you shouldn't be opposed to Trump sending in troops to help with public safety.
 
Mycroft said:
Maybe.

1. The only reason the feds were there was to protect the federal buildings from anarchist attacks. Those attacks seem to have ended.

2. The anarchists have turned their attention to city buildings. The city is responsible for protecting those places. Not the feds.

3. If the city or state asks for help, fine. They can give control over to the feds who will activate the National Guard and deal with the anarchists for once and for all.

4. But if the city or state doesn't ask for help and if the anarchists stay away from the federal buildings, then the feds stand down (but remain at the ready).
Click to expand...

I tend to think the fed government has an interest in protecting non fed buildings used for government purposes
 
ReubenSherr said:
I wouldn't mind that, but it would have to specify exactly where people were required to mask up, and where they weren't.

And if you all are in favor of the federal government having that much power, then you shouldn't be opposed to Trump sending in troops to help with public safety.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to my point. I'll give you one more chance to support the claim that you believe that "lives matter" by coming out in favor of a nationwide mask mandate.
 
Phys251 said:
:2funny:

You are okay with 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 dead Americans. Freedumbs mean more to you.

Do not claim that "lives matter" when it is bloody obvious that you don't believe it. :)
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy meter going off ...

Liberals couldn't care less about human life or they would work to protect children in the womb. Since they do not, their boo hoo-ing over lost Covid lives...to say the least.. rings hollow
 
ReubenSherr said:
???

I just did.
Click to expand...

You said "I wouldn't mind that." That's wishy-washy. No half answers this time: Yes or no, do you support a nationwide mask mandate?
 
Phys251 said:
You said "I wouldn't mind that." That's wishy-washy. No half answers this time: Yes or no, do you support a nationwide mask mandate?
Click to expand...

if Trump says it, he will!
 
Phys251 said:
You said "I wouldn't mind that." That's wishy-washy. No half answers this time: Yes or no, do you support a nationwide mask mandate?
Click to expand...

Lol do you all understand that everything is not black and white? Seriously, some liberals cannot think multi-dimensionally.

YES, I support a nationwide mask mandate, but under certain conditions.
 
2distracted said:
Hypocrisy meter going off ...

Liberals couldn't care less about human life or they would work to protect children in the womb
Click to expand...

If the 160,000+ COVID-19 victims were fetuses, you people would be treating this as the national crisis that it is.

You are not "pro-life." :)
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol do you all understand that everything is not black and white? Seriously, some liberals cannot think multi-dimensionally.

YES, I support a nationwide mask mandate, but under certain conditions.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
ReubenSherr said:
I wouldn't mind that, but it would have to specify exactly where people were required to mask up, and where they weren't.

And if you all are in favor of the federal government having that much power, then you shouldn't be opposed to Trump sending in troops to help with public safety.
Click to expand...

i'm not opposed to Trump using his tools to restore order. I am bothered by feds abducting people in unmarked vans. If you're going to send in the military to be police, they should have to follow the same rules, not just make people who look kind of like they might be liberals disappear.
 
Phys251 said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

(1)The law would have to be extremely specific as to where citizens were required to wear masks, and where they were not. I would not be in favor of requiring people to wear masks outside.

(2)The penalty would have to be reasonable. Such as a fine for violating the order, not imprisonment.

(3)The law would have to make provisions for young children, people with breathing difficulties, etc.
 
ReubenSherr said:
(1)The law would have to be extremely specific as to where citizens were required to wear masks, and where they were not. I would not be in favor of requiring people to wear masks outside.
Click to expand...

Transmission is far more likely indoors than outdoors for several reasons.

(2)The penalty would have to be reasonable. Such as a fine for violating the order, not imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Seems like a pretty light sentence for endangering someone's life, but that's better than nothing.

(3)The law would have to make provisions for young children, people with breathing difficulties, etc.
Click to expand...

Just model it after successful nations such as South Korea and Japan. And don't even try with the "breathing difficulties" excuse. If someone can't even breathe with a mask on, they shouldn't leave their home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom